Filed 6/4/15 In re A.S. CA2/8 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for 

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION EIGHT 

In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

 B259156 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. DK04732) 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

A.S., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Steven Klaif, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. 

 Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County 

Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

* * * * * * 
2

 Mother A.S. challenges the juvenile court’s order taking jurisdiction over her 

17-year-old son Alexander. The court sustained allegations that mother physically 

abused Alexander and that she suffered from emotional problems including excessive 

anger and aggression. Alexander’s father was unable to care for him, and mother did 

not want to reunify with him. We conclude jurisdiction was warranted and affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURE 

1. Sustained Allegations 

 The juvenile court found that father, who resides in Germany, could not care for 

Alexander, and that finding is not challenged on appeal. 

 With respect to mother, the court sustained the following allegations: Mother 

physically abused Alexander, which was excessive and caused unreasonable pain and 

suffering. Alexander did not want to reside with mother. Mother has emotional 

problems making her unable to provide regular care and supervision. She suffered 

from mental and emotional problems, exhibiting frequent mood swings and would 

become angry and aggressive. 

2. Alexander’s Version 

 Alexander came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) after mother was arrested for child abuse. The 

criminal court issued a restraining order, preventing mother from having contact with 

Alexander. Alexander reported that mother stabbed him with a screw driver, a box 

cutter, and a carpet knife. Alexander also reported mother pushed him causing him to 

fall into a drum set and scratch his eye. A social worker observed scars on 

Alexander’s arms. 

 Alexander described mother as a member of a cult and claimed she believed 

aliens were taking over the government. (Father reported that he believed mother 

suffered from a mental disorder, but the only rationale he gave was mother’s failure to 

inform him of her pregnancy with Alexander.) Alexander believed that mother was 

overly controlling. 
3

 Alexander reported that he did not want any contact with mother. Alexander 

wanted to live in foster care, and the DCFS concluded that mother was not able to 

provide a safe home. 

3. Mother’s Version 

 Mother vigorously maintained that Alexander, who was larger than her, always 

was the aggressor, and that her conduct was in self-defense. But mother 

acknowledged she “picked up things to defend herself.” For example, mother said that 

Alexander once lunged toward a screwdriver she was holding. Mother’s parents and 

several friends submitted letters in her support, emphasizing her efforts to care for her 

son and to love and cherish him. One writer indicated that Alexander told him he 

intended to use the dependency system as a bargaining chip with mother. None of 

mother’s friends or family observed mother verbally or physically abuse Alexander. 

 When Alexander was detained, mother said that she did not want custody of 

him. Mother did not feel safe with Alexander in the home. 

 At the jurisdictional hearing, mother’s counsel argued mother was the victim 

not the abuser. She argued that Alexander had been detained in four placements since 

he was removed from mother’s custody. Counsel argued that his first foster parent 

was upset because Alexander did not follow the rules. “And he has been replaced a 

few times, not just once or twice.” 

4. Court Findings 

 The court concluded that although Alexander was rebellious, mother had an 

obligation to refrain from using violence against him. It sustained the allegations as 

described above and concluded jurisdiction was warranted. 

5. Alexander’s Postdetention Placements 

 Prior to the jurisdictional hearing, a DCFS report detailed Alexander’s 

inappropriate conduct during his first foster placement. Specifically, Alexander acted 

inappropriately with his girlfriend by grabbing her breasts in public. Alexander 

rebelled when his foster parents prevented him from being alone with his girlfriend. 
4

Alexander refused to return to his foster home unless his foster parents allowed him to 

see his girlfriend whenever he wanted. 

 Subsequent to the jurisdictional hearing, DCFS filed a report indicating that 

Alexander had difficulty in other foster care placements. He accused one foster 

mother of physical abuse, but the accusation was unfounded. When placed in an 

emergency shelter he was “rough-housing” and “belittling” other children in the home. 

Alexander also filed a complaint against his group home, which was unsubstantiated. 

In his next placement, Alexander was “defiant, argumentative, verbally and physically 

aggressive towards others.” Alexander shoved a staff person, who was attempting to 

implement house rules. 

 At the same time it detailed Alexander’s postdetention placements, DCFS 

reported that mother reiterated that she did not want to reunify with Alexander. 

DISCUSSION 

 Mother argues that the jurisdictional order should be reversed because DCFS 

failed to timely provide information regarding Alexander’s difficulty in his 

postdetention placements and such information was relevant to her argument that he 

was the aggressor. Mother also argues the finding that she suffered from mental and 

emotional problems is not supported by substantial evidence. Mother seeks reversal of 

the jurisdictional order and remand for a new jurisdictional hearing. 

 We conclude that jurisdiction was necessary even if, as mother argues, 

Alexander was the aggressor. We therefore need not consider mother’s specific 

challenges, but nevertheless explain why they lack merit. 

 “[T]he juvenile court takes jurisdiction over children, not parents.” (In re I.A.

(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491.) “The court asserts jurisdiction with respect to a 

child when one of the statutory prerequisites listed in [Welfare and Institutions Code] 

section 300 has been demonstrated.” (Ibid.) When a single finding is supported by the 

evidence the court may decline to consider other jurisdictional findings. (Id. at 

p. 1492.) 
5

 Mother does not dispute that jurisdiction was warranted if she physically 

abused Alexander. Her argument is that if the court had considered all of the evidence 

including the postjurisdictional evidence it would have concluded Alexander was the 

aggressor. 

 However, even assuming that Alexander was the aggressor, jurisdiction was 

necessary in this case. The dependency system does not require a parent’s conduct be 

blameworthy. (In re R.T. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 795, 797.) “When a child thereby 

faces a substantial risk of serious physical harm, a parent’s inability to supervise or 

protect a child is enough by itself to invoke the juvenile court’s dependency 

jurisdiction.” (Ibid.) Here mother admitted that she could not supervise or protect 

Alexander. She was afraid to live with him, did not want custody of him, and did not 

want to reunify with him. Crediting mother’s version of events indicated that 

Alexander was an incorrigible teen and required support beyond what mother could 

provide. Under that scenario, jurisdiction was warranted. (Ibid.) 

 Moreover, mother’s specific arguments lack merit. Even if DCFS should have 

presented information regarding Alexander’s difficulty in his placements sooner, 

mother was privy to this information and could have called witnesses to testify at the 

jurisdictional hearing. Her counsel argued that Alexander was in four placements 

since his detention. Counsel further argued that he had to move because of 

inappropriate conduct with his girlfriend and the failure to follow house rules. Mother 

fails to show that a new jurisdictional hearing is required for the court to consider 

evidence mother could have but did not develop at the jurisdictional hearing. In any 

event, the court recognized that Alexander was rebellious but concluded that mother—

as the parent—was required to refrain from responding to his conduct with violence. 

Nothing in the postjurisdictional report undermines that conclusion. 

 Finally, ample evidence supported the allegation that mother suffered from 

emotional problems causing her to anger easily and become aggressive. (In re Cole Y.

(2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452 [reviewing juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings 

for substantial evidence].) The evidence that mother repeatedly and regularly 
6

responded to Alexander with physical violence supported the allegation that she 

angered quickly and was aggressive. There was evidence this placed Alexander at risk 

of harm as he reported and a social worker observed scars from mother’s conduct. As 

respondent argues, a mother who “physically abuses her child by repeatedly stabbing 

him with a box cutter, stabbing the child with a screw driver, and violently pushing the 

child, suffers from a mental and emotional problem” and may benefit from therapy.

DISPOSITION 

 The juvenile court’s jurisdictional order is affirmed. 

 FLIER, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 BIGELOW, P. J. 

 RUBIN, J.