Filed 11/19/20 In re A.S. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re A.S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B301424

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

QUINCY S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 19CCJP04659A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. 

Affirmed.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Quincy S. (father) appeals from the order of the juvenile 

court taking jurisdiction over his teenaged daughter, A.S. Father 

contends that the evidence does not support the finding A.S. is a 

dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code1

section 300, subdivision (b)(1). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Father and mother never married and were not in a 

relationship when the Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) received a referral about A.S.

The child, who lives with mother, has an on and off 

relationship with father and had not seen him in three months 

when the incident occurred in May 2019. That day, A.S. was at 

the paternal grandmother’s house playing cards with paternal 

aunt when father arrived. A.S. refused to speak to father causing 

him to become upset that she was being disrespectful. The two 

exchanged words and then father “popped” his daughter in the 

mouth at least twice. Panicked, paternal aunt called mother to 

pick A.S. up.

A.S. and paternal aunt were present when mother arrived. 

Paternal aunt described father as “looking for a fight.” Mother 

told father “not to put his fucking hands on my daughter,” to 

which father replied, “you’re not going to tell me what to do. I’ll 

beat your ass.” Father pushed mother and she stumbled 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
3

backwards but pushed father back. The two began to fight. He 

hit her on the side of the face with his fist around the temple and 

cheek. She hit him back with a knife. A.S. sustained a cut on her 

finger when she tried to stop her parents’ violence. Paternal 

grandmother told them to leave and so mother and A.S., who was 

crying, got into the car. Father then kicked the car’s sideview

mirror off. A.S. confirmed these events and later told paternal 

aunt that if father had “just left us alone this wouldn’t have 

happened.” Father sustained lacerations and stab wounds.

DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) 

and (b)(1) alleging father’s physical abuse of A.S. (counts a-1 and 

b-) and domestic violence (counts a-2 and b-2). The juvenile court 

removed A.S. from her parents. DCFS placed her with maternal 

grandmother.

After the detention, mother was cooperative and visited the 

child daily. She reported having experienced domestic violence in 

the past with father. In the worst incident, the two fought 

physically when mother was seven months pregnant with A.S. 

Father went to jail. 

N.G., the mother of father’s oldest child, C.S., reported that 

in the past father and N.G. engaged in domestic violence. They 

were each arrested once for fighting. N.G. sought a restraining 

order against father once to mollify C.S.’s school because father 

had become angry when C.S. did not want him to pick her up 

“and threw some things around at the school.”

A.S. did not wish to have visits with father.

Mother stipulated to the petition’s allegations. The 

juvenile court sustained the petition as amended finding true the 

allegations in all counts as to mother and in counts b-1 (physical 

abuse of A.S.), and a-2 and b-2 (domestic violence) as to father.
4

(§ 300, subds. (a) & (b)(1).) The court removed the child from her 

parents’ custody and ordered reunification services. Father 

appealed.

DISCUSSION

Father contends the evidence does not support the order 

sustaining the count alleging domestic violence under 

subdivision (b)(1) of section 3002 because the admitted violence 

between father and mother was “an isolated incident that was 

not likely to continue,” where the last and only prior incident was 

15 years earlier and where mother started it.

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) invokes the jurisdiction of 

the juvenile court and describes a child who either “has suffered, 

or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious 

physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of 

his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect 

the child.” (Italics added.) The “use of the disjunctive ‘or’ 

demonstrates that a showing of prior abuse and harm is 

2 The juvenile court sustained count b-2 that alleged: “The 

child A[.]S[.]’s mother, . . . and father . . . have a history of 

engaging in violent altercations in the presence of the child. On 

05/25/19, the father struck the mother’s face with the father’s

fists and pushed the mother to the ground. The mother pushed, 

struck and stabbed the father’s back and neck with a knife 

inflicting three puncture wounds to the father’s back which 

required 13 stitches and a superficial wound to the father’s neck. 

The father kicked the mother’s vehicle and broke the rearview 

mirror while the child was inside the vehicle. On a prior 

occasion, the father struck and pushed the mother. The 

parents[’] violent conduct endangers the child’s physical health 

and safety, and places the child at risk of serious physical harm, 

damage and danger.”
5

sufficient, standing alone, to establish dependency jurisdiction 

under these subdivisions.” (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 

1426, 1435, fn. omitted.) If the jurisdictional allegations are 

based solely on risk to the child, that risk must be shown to exist 

at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. (In re Isabella F. (2014) 

226 Cal.App.4th 128, 140.) 

“[D]omestic violence in the same household where children 

are living . . . is a failure to protect [the children] from the 

substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering 

serious physical harm or illness from it.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 

52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194.) Children can be “put in a position of 

physical danger from [spousal] violence” because, “for example, 

they could wander into the room where it was occurring and be 

accidentally hit by a thrown object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg.” 

(Ibid.; accord, In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 575–576.) 

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

substantial evidence. (In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.)

Here, the evidence was more than sufficient to support the 

juvenile court’s domestic violence finding in count b-2. A.S. has 

already suffered harm. The entire fight took place in front of the 

child. She was cut when she tried to stop the fight. And she was 

crying in the car when father kicked the sideview mirror off.

Moreover, past “ ‘violent behavior in a relationship is ‘the 

best predictor of future violence.’ Studies demonstrate that once 

violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 

63% of those relationships. . . . Even if a batterer moves on to 

another relationship, he will continue to use physical force as a 

means of controlling his new partner.’ ” (In re E.B., supra, 

184 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) A.S. knows that father is violent with 

women. N.G. confirmed that father fought with her and was 
6

arrested for it. Then he moved on to a violent relationship with 

mother and hit her while she was seven months’ pregnant with 

A.S. Father even hit A.S. multiple times Father’s attempts to 

recast the evidence and downplay his role by blaming mother is 

unavailing. Father is pugnacious. He was “ ‘looking for a fight’ ” 

and threatened to “beat [mother’s] ass’ ” that day. He threw 

things around at C.S.’s school. Violence in front of a child is still 

violence and father has demonstrated a long history of engaging 

in violence with women, including his own daughter, which is a 

good predictor of risk of harm to A.S.

3

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

DHANIDINA, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J. EGERTON, J.

3 As we affirm the order taking jurisdiction over A.S. based 

on father’s conduct under count b-2, we need not address the 

merits of father’s challenge to counts b-1 and a-1. “As long as 

there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial 

that another might be inappropriate.” (In re Ashley B. (2011) 202 

Cal.App.4th 968, 979.)