Filed 12/18/23 In re U.M. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re U.M., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B325187;

 B318563

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP05786A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VANESSA G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.
2

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

INTRODUCTION

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department) filed a dependency petition 

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 former section 300, 

subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally),

(b)(1) (failure to protect), and (j) (abuse of sibling) in December 

2021 on behalf of U.M. (born April 2010) and his siblings. The 

petition was based on physical abuse of U.M. by his mother 

Vanessa G. and his parents’ limited ability to meet U.M.’s mental 

and behavioral health needs.

At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in 

February 2022 the juvenile court sustained the petition as to 

U.M. but not his siblings, declared U.M. a dependent of the court, 

released him to the custody of both parents, and ordered family 

maintenance services. Vanessa G. appealed the jurisdiction 

findings and disposition orders (B318563), contending there was 

insufficient evidence to support a finding U.M. was at substantial 

risk of serious physical harm by the time of the jurisdiction 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
3

hearing and that Vanessa was unable or failed to provide 

appropriate care and supervision to U.M. given his mental and 

emotional issues.

Subsequently, in July 2022 the Department filed a 

section 342 petition on behalf of U.M., under former section 300, 

subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), alleging new circumstances of physical 

abuse of U.M. by Vanessa in May 2022.

2 At the combined 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing on the section 342 petition in 

October 2022, the juvenile court sustained the petition, removed 

U.M. from Vanessa and placed him with his father Ul.M. with 

monitored visits with Vanessa, and ordered family maintenance

services and enhancement services for Vanessa. Vanessa 

appealed the jurisdiction findings and disposition orders

(B325187), contending there was insufficient evidence to support 

a finding U.M. suffered serious physical harm from Vanessa’s 

physical discipline or that he was at substantial risk of serious 

physical harm by the time of the jurisdiction hearing on the 

section 342 petition.

2 Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), formerly provided, in 

relevant part, that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the 

juvenile court if “[t]he child 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 the child’s parent or guardian 

to adequately supervise or protect the child, . . . or by the 

inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the 

child due to the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, 

developmental disability, or substance abuse.” Effective 

January 1, 2023, Senate Bill No. 1085 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) 

(Stats. 2022, ch. 832, § 1) amended section 300 by rewriting 

subdivision (b)(1) to enumerate the existing bases for dependency 

jurisdiction in separate subparagraphs (b)(1)(A) through (D).
4

We address both appeals in this combined opinion and 

affirm in each case.3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prior Referrals and Dependency Proceedings

In December 2010 the juvenile court took jurisdiction of 

U.M. and his older sister K.V. due to domestic violence between 

Ul.M. and Vanessa and Ul.M.’s substance abuse. K.V. was placed 

with her father, and the court granted Vanessa and Ul.M. 

reunification services as to U.M. In July 2011 U.M. was placed 

with Vanessa and in January 2012 the court terminated 

jurisdiction, granting her physical custody of U.M with monitored 

visits to Ul.M.

In February 2015 a referral in Riverside County alleged 

Vanessa hit K.V. and U.M. at a restaurant. K.V. said Vanessa 

hit her thigh four times and then hit U.M.; U.M. dropped a cup, 

and K.V. said Vanessa then threw the cup at U.M. causing a 

black eye. K.V. said that while driving home, Vanessa hit her 

again at a red light, and the reporting party took photos of red 

marks on K.V.’s thigh. The referral was substantiated, a court 

case was initiated, and the children were detained from Vanessa.

In May 2016 the children were returned to Vanessa.

In August 2015 the juvenile court took jurisdiction of U.M., 

then five years old, and his younger sibling S.L. due to physical 

abuse of U.M. by Vanessa. U.M. was placed with his paternal 

grandparents, and S.L. was released to her father, Ul.M. 

Vanessa completed reunification services, U.M. and S.L. were 

3 U.M.’s father Ul.M did not appeal after either hearing.
5

returned to Vanessa’s custody, and the juvenile court terminated 

jurisdiction in August 2016.

In 2019 after a referral accusing Vanessa of physical abuse 

was initially deemed “inconclusive,” a case was opened for 

voluntary family maintenance services with siblings U.M., S.L., 

and A.L. U.M., then nine years old, stated Vanessa hit him and 

yelled at him, pulled him by his hoodie, choked him, and slapped 

him in the face. The reporter stated Vanessa banged U.M.’s head 

on the wall. U.M. had a scratch on his left eye and redness to the 

right side of his face. The physical abuse was ongoing on a 

weekly basis, and U.M. stated he was fearful of Vanessa and of 

going into foster care if he reported her abuse. U.M. reported he 

felt he deserved mistreatment from Vanessa because he talked 

back and visited his father on Sundays. The family was 

ultimately deemed stabilized with services and the case was 

closed.

Later in 2019 another referral for physical abuse was 

deemed inconclusive after U.M. reported Vanessa “cussed” at 

him, gave him the middle finger, threw him to the ground, and 

punched him. Vanessa denied the allegations. Other individuals 

noted U.M.’s behavior could quickly escalate and become 

aggressive and explosive, and that Vanessa triggered U.M.’s 

behavior and caused him to escalate. The social worker was 

informed U.M. attempted to “‘choke’” Vanessa while she was 

driving. When Vanessa attempted to video record his behavior, 

U.M. reportedly attempted to run away and then hit her with a 

stick. Individuals reported U.M. alleged abuse by Vanessa in the 

hopes he would be placed with his father.
6

In November 2020 a referral alleged that U.M. disclosed 

during a Zoom learning day that Vanessa hit S.L. hard, then S.L. 

hit U.M. for no reason. U.M. then reportedly said that Vanessa 

threw a water bottle, kicked U.M., and threw him on the floor. 

U.M. said Vanessa screamed at him and “smacked” him for 

hitting S.L. and threw his phone on the floor. During the 

Department’s investigation U.M. said Vanessa did not actually 

hit him or his siblings, and he just wanted to get Vanessa’s 

attention because he was upset with her. He had no visible 

marks or bruises; Vanessa denied the allegations. No evidence 

indicated U.M. was abused.

B. The February 2022 Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition

In October 2021 the Department received two referrals 

concerning U.M. One reported U.M. was watching pornography 

and said his father had shown him pornography; the second was 

made after U.M. reported to school staff that Vanessa hit him 

with objects including a belt.

U.M. stated that Vanessa hit him with a belt all over his 

body. U.M. also reported getting hit on the shoulder when 

Vanessa threw a phone at him because he used up all of the hot 

water during his shower, the floor was wet, and Vanessa blamed 

him for causing extra work. U.M. reported having a bruise on his 

leg. No bruise was observable, but U.M. had a drawing on his 

thigh he stated he drew on himself so the bruise could not be 

seen. U.M. appeared well-groomed, healthy, and dressed 

appropriately, with no visible marks or bruises. U.M.’s school 

counselor stated U.M. told her about the abuse at home and said 

he drew on his leg to hide a bruise. U.M. stated Vanessa threw 

her shoe and other objects at him, like water bottles and a brush,
7

almost every day. He reported Vanessa also called him vulgar 

sexualized names. Vanessa told the Department she understood 

the need to refrain from using physical discipline and agreed to 

services.

In early November 2021 the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department, Norwalk station, informed the Department that 

U.M. had reported abuse by Vanessa. On November 3, in an 

interview at his school with a sheriff’s deputy, U.M. reported 

Vanessa disciplined him by hitting him with different objects and 

called him names. He reported that two to three weeks prior, 

Vanessa became mad at him when his sister fell off the couch 

while playing and hit him with a belt on his back four to five 

times. Vanessa also hit him with a belt approximately three to 

four times on his back because his sister fell and hurt her knees 

while running. A day or two before the previous incident, 

Vanessa hit him on the back of his head with the back of her 

hand and pushed him to his room when he noticed an unknown 

substance on the floor. He stated Vanessa constantly called him 

vulgar names. The deputy found U.M.’s statements 

“inconsistent” and noted U.M. could not provide “dates or details 

of the abovementioned incidents.” The deputy observed a twoinch bruise on U.M.’s back above his waistline; U.M. was unsure 

if it was from the belt. The deputy also observed a two-inch 

scratch; U.M. was unsure where he got that but stated two 

scratches on his neck were from playing with his sisters.

Later the same month, Vanessa informed the Department 

she had called the police because U.M. was violent with her and 

U.M.’s sisters. A social worker went to the home and saw U.M. in 

the back of a sheriff’s car. The deputy stated U.M. was being 

assessed for a psychiatric hold due to a threat to harm himself. 
8

U.M. had expressed he had no reason to live due to his home

circumstances. Vanessa stated U.M. went into “a fit of rage” 

after she forbade him from playing in the front yard then closed 

himself in a room with his sisters with a baseball bat, and she 

called the police because she did not know what to do. S.L. later 

described U.M. hitting the couch and wall with a bat, then 

threatening his sisters in a room with the bat and stating he 

wanted to kill himself. U.M. later confirmed locking himself in a 

room with his sisters with a bat after Vanessa made him angry.

U.M. was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility from 

November 23 to 30, 2021. After his release, U.M. stated he said 

“all those things about his mom hitting him” because he wanted 

to live with his dad, and that he knew he had to live with his 

mom until age 18 and wanted to stop lying.

On December 21, 2021 the Department filed a petition 

alleging U.M., S.L., and A.L. came within section 300. The 

Department alleged in counts a-1, b-1, and j-1 that Vanessa 

physically abused U.M. by striking him with a belt on his 

buttocks and back; on a prior occasion, she threw a phone at his 

shoulder; and on prior occasions, she pulled his hair, struck him 

with an open hand on his head, pushed him, and hit him with 

objects including belts, shoes and hangers; and that U.M. and 

S.L. were prior dependents of the court due to inappropriate 

physical discipline of U.M. such that the siblings S.L. and A.L. 

were at risk of harm. The Department further alleged in counts

b-2 and j-2 that Vanessa and Ul.M. had limited ability to provide 

U.M. with appropriate care due to his mental and emotional 

problems and aggressive behavior toward others; that U.M. was 

involuntarily hospitalized from November 23 to 30, 2021 due to 

being a danger to himself and others; and his parents’ actions put 
9

U.M. and his two younger sisters, eight-year-old S.L. and fouryear-old A.L., at risk of physical harm. At the detention hearing 

on December 23, 2021 the juvenile court released U.M. to both 

parents. In January 2022 U.M. told the dependency investigator 

he did not want to live with Vanessa and instead wanted to live 

with his father in Arizona. Regarding physical discipline, he 

stated Vanessa previously would “smack me in the butt with her 

open hand[, b]ut when [Vanessa and his stepfather] started 

putting cameras around the house, they only yell at me.” He said 

Vanessa used to hit him with her open hand “wherever she gets 

me because I would be running from her,” and also used to hit 

him with shoes, a water bottle, and the phone. He further 

reported Vanessa “smacked” him on the back and on his head.

U.M.’s sister A.L. reported Vanessa “[‘]smacked [U.M.] on 

his butt and back. She also takes away his phone and tablet. 

[U.M.] gets hit with a ‘cinto’ (belt) by mom.’” She reported the 

belt was “brownish and blackish” and belonged to “‘my dad.’”

Vanessa denied abusing U.M. and said U.M. knew what to 

say to retaliate against her. Vanessa stated U.M.’s abuse 

allegations were “‘all a lie. He is very manipulative’” and that

U.M. “‘has a tendency of exaggerating things and choosing words 

that make it seem like he’s being abused.’” Vanessa expressed 

not knowing what to do or how to cope with her son’s meltdowns

and challenging behavior. She reported U.M. threatened to file 

reports and hit himself to inflict bruises. Vanessa did not know 

how to handle U.M.’s behaviors but felt the Department’s 

involvement gave U.M. a sense of entitlement and stripped her 

from being able to parent her son. Vanessa believed U.M.’s 

behavior had gotten worse since the Department came back into 

their lives. She felt prior case services helped but U.M. also knew 
10

“‘what to say to get [her] in trouble.’” U.M.’s stepfather reported 

U.M. always threatened to tell social workers Vanessa abused 

him when things did not go his way.

At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on 

February 15, 2022 the juvenile court dismissed the petition as it 

related to U.M.’s two younger sisters and sustained the petition 

as to U.M.4 The juvenile court declared U.M. a dependent of the 

4 The sustained counts, with amendments, were as follows:

“[Counts a-1 and b-1]: On prior occasions, the child[] [U.M.]’s 

mother[]inappropriately physically disciplined the child U.M. by 

striking the child with a belt on the child’s buttocks and back. 

On a prior occasion, the mother threw a phone at the child’s 

shoulder. On prior occasions, the mother pulled the child’s hair, 

struck the child with an open hand to the back of the child’s head 

and pushed the child. On prior occasions, the mother struck the 

child with objects including belts, shoes and hangers. Such 

physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable 

pain and suffering. The child[] [U.M.] is a prior dependent of the 

Juvenile Court due to the mother’s inappropriate physical 

discipline of the child [U.M.]. Such inappropriate discipline of the 

child by the mother endangers the child’s physical health and 

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

damage, danger, and physical abuse.

“[Count b-2]: The . . . mother[] and . . . father of the child, [U.M.], 

have a limited ability to provide the child, [U.M.] with 

appropriate ongoing care and supervision due to the child’s 

mental and emotional problems and aggressive behaviors

towards others. The child was involuntarily hospitalized from 

11/23/2021 to 11/30/21 due to the child being a danger to self and 

others. Such a limited ability to provide appropriate parental 

care and supervision for the child on the part of the parents, 
11

court, released him to the custody of both parents, and ordered 

family maintenance services.

Vanessa timely appealed the jurisdiction findings and 

disposition orders (B318563).

C. The Section 342 Petition, and the October 2022 Jurisdiction 

Findings and Disposition 

In May 2022 the Department received a referral alleging 

Vanessa physically abused U.M. In July 2022 the Department 

filed a subsequent petition pursuant to section 342 on behalf of 

U.M., under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petition 

alleged for both counts: “On or about 05/24/2022, the child’s 

mother physically abused the child by repeatedly striking the 

child. The mother grabbed the child by the child’s hair and 

dragged the child, causing the child’s hair to fall out. The child 

sustained a scratch and bruising to the child’s legs. Such 

physical abuse was excessive and caused the child unreasonable 

pain and suffering. Such physical abuse of the child by the 

mother endangers the child’s physical health and safety and 

places the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, 

and physical abuse.”

Vanessa initially refused to allow a social worker to enter

or to cooperate with the Department investigators who arrived to 

investigate the referral. The following day she agreed to 

questioning and stated U.M. hit her in the face during an 

argument over his homework and music, then he went to the 

neighbors. She denied pulling his hair. The social worker took 

endangers the child’s physical health, safety, and well-being and 

places the child [sic].”
12

photos of Vanessa’s face when Vanessa stated U.M. punched her, 

but the worker did not see any marks or bruises. Vanessa stated

U.M. had a tendency to call for help after verbal altercations so 

the neighbors believed she was hitting him. Vanessa stated she 

was unable to discipline U.M. and was afraid for the safety of 

herself and her daughters. Vanessa attributed U.M.’s behavior to 

his father’s influence, saying that Ul.M. told U.M. she did not 

love him and he should not have to listen to his stepfather. At 

subsequent interview attempts, Vanessa declined to allow 

interviews with her daughters and stated U.M.’s stepfather was 

not available. Vanessa blamed the allegations on the 

Department blaming her and for “‘trying to open a case and get

kids removed.’”

The neighbor, A.G., reported U.M. came to his house crying 

and saying that “‘his mom dragged him by his hair and sent him 

to do his homework at my house.’” A.G. stated he believed U.M. 

because U.M. “‘ran his fingers through his hair and he was 

shedding a lot of hair.’” The neighbor reported this was not the 

first time U.M. ran to his house complaining about being hit by 

Vanessa. He stated he had heard U.M. yelling from across the 

street and he was concerned for U.M.’s safety in Vanessa’s care.

U.M. told his social worker Vanessa told him to go to his 

desk while he was working on a school assignment on the floor. 

They argued and Vanessa got close to his face telling him “‘is this 

the life you want to live,’” he pushed her away and they had a 

scuffle. Vanessa cursed at him, grabbed him by his hair and told 

him to leave. The social worker observed U.M. had red spots on 

his head.
13

U.M. later elaborated Vanessa became upset and started 

hitting him when he did not follow her instructions about

listening to music during his test. Vanessa grabbed and pulled 

him by the hair and dragged him to the floor and out of the home 

while cursing at him, and she hit his arm with her hand.

Vanessa told him to go take his test and listen to music at the 

neighbor’s house, and he walked over to the neighbor’s house. 

When he got to the neighbor’s house, he touched his head and he 

was shedding hair from Vanessa pulling his hair. He reported he 

also had a scratch and some bruising on his legs. U.M. reported 

he also hit Vanessa in their altercation, possibly on her face. He 

reported that this was not the first time Vanessa used physical 

contact on him. The interviewing social worker asked why he did 

not share past abuse with his usual social worker. He responded, 

“‘[B]ecause I was scared that they would take me to foster care.’” 

U.M. reported feeling unsafe returning to Vanessa’s care and 

said, “‘[N]o, I am scared that she does the same thing again and I 

feel down at my mom’s house.’”

U.M. called his father Ul.M. in Arizona asking him to pick 

him up from the neighbor’s house. Ul.M. conferred with the 

social worker and drove from Arizona the next day to pick up 

U.M. U.M. told his father Vanessa kicked him out of her house 

and hit him. Ul.M. reported he asked U.M. why Vanessa did that 

and U.M. said Vanessa was upset he was playing music while 

taking an exam and started hitting him. U.M. had faded 

bruising on his back and thigh.
14

The Department sought and obtained a removal order and

detained U.M. from Vanessa while releasing him to Ul.M.

At the detention hearing in August 2022 the juvenile court

detained U.M. from Vanessa’s care and released him to Ul.M.,

with monitored visits for Vanessa.

Additional evidence at the time of the combined jurisdiction 

and disposition hearing on October 26, 2022 included that U.M. 

reported this was not the first time Vanessa dragged him by the 

hair; she hit him and pulled his hair many times and screamed 

and cursed at him all the time. He stated that he was six or 

seven years old when conflicts began with Vanessa. His social 

worker reported that in the past, U.M. told her Vanessa pulled 

his hair then recanted and said he made it up because he was 

upset. When asked why he recanted in the past by making

physical abuse allegations against Vanessa and then saying he

lied, U.M. replied he was afraid to go to foster care. U.M. 

reported being afraid of Vanessa and did not want to come back 

to Vanessa’s home “‘because she will do it again.’”

The social worker who investigated and substantiated the 

family’s referral in October 2021 was interviewed and gave her 

opinion that U.M.’s acting out behaviors were escalating due to 

the home situation between him and Vanessa. She was 

concerned for U.M.’s safety in Vanessa’s care and stated that it

was due time to detain U.M. from Vanessa, “‘There is only so

many times a kid can say he is being hit and we are not

listening.’” The social worker who investigated the family’s prior 

referral from March 2022 also stated there were red flags to 

suspect physical abuse on U.M. by Vanessa but U.M. recanted 

about being pulled by the hair by Vanessa. U.M.’s residential 

treatment therapist shared that U.M. informed her a few times
15

Vanessa hit him, then would recant and say it was a long time 

ago or say he lied about the allegations.

U.M.’s stepfather stated U.M. was disrespectful, 

manipulative, and physically abusive towards Vanessa and made 

false allegations of physical abuse against Vanessa in the past 

and had a history of lying. He would lash out when things did 

not go his way and had broken doors and made holes in the walls 

while upset. The stepfather reported that U.M. had learned to

manipulate everyone and it worked because now he was residing

with his father. U.M.’s maternal grandmother stated U.M. had a 

history of being verbally and physically aggressive towards 

Vanessa. U.M. was aggressive towards maternal grandmother 

on an occasion when she was watching him and asked him to give 

her cell phone back. He became upset and began to scream and 

curse at her, use curse words, scratched her new car with a stick, 

and grabbed a pair of scissors and threatened to kill her. She 

believed U.M. suffered from significant mental health issues.

As a result of its investigation, the Department concluded 

U.M. was at high risk of continued physical violence in Vanessa’s 

home.

Before the disposition hearing, U.M. was interviewed and 

reconfirmed Vanessa dragged him by the hair on the day of the 

incident and used physical discipline in the past. In her 

interview, Vanessa initially said she would only answer “yes” or 

“no” questions, denied hitting U.M., reiterated that U.M. punched 

her, and stated that the paternal family was hindering U.M.’s 

therapeutic services. Vanessa repeated her previous sentiment 

about the Department not supporting her, stating, “‘I feel that no 

matter what I say you guys already know and say what you guys 

want.’” Vanessa was unable to explain if she had learned 
16

anything from her parenting class that she had since 

implemented with U.M. The social worker reported Vanessa was 

compliant with her court-ordered case plan yet she had not put 

anything she should have learned into practice.

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing the juvenile 

court sustained the section 384 petition, removed U.M. from 

Vanessa and placed him with Ul.M. with monitored visits with 

Vanessa, and ordered family maintenance services for both 

parents and enhancement services for Vanessa.

Vanessa timely appealed the jurisdiction findings and 

disposition orders (B325187).

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

The purpose of section 300 “is to provide maximum safety 

and protection for children who are currently being physically, 

sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being 

exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and 

emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.”

(§ 300.2; see In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289; see also

In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 599.) 

“Section 300, subdivision (a), provides that jurisdiction may 

be assumed if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk 

the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted 

nonaccidentally by the child’s parent or guardian.” (In re Cole L. 

(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601.) “‘Nonaccidental’ generally 

means a parent or guardian ‘acted intentionally or willfully.’” 

(Ibid.; accord, In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 629.)
17

Former section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorized the 

juvenile court to assume jurisdiction when “[t]he child 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 the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

or protect the child” or by the “willful or negligent failure of the 

parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, 

clothing, shelter, or medical treatment” or by the “inability of the 

parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the 

parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, developmental disability, or 

substance abuse.” “A jurisdiction finding under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to prove three 

elements: (1) the parent’s or guardian’s neglectful conduct or 

failure or inability to protect the child; (2) causation; and 

(3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of 

serious physical harm or illness.” (In re Cole L., supra, 

70 Cal.App.5th at p. 601; accord, In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 

840, 848; In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561; see 

In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 624 [“section 300(b)(1) 

authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a 

parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to 

supervise or protect her child”].)

At the jurisdiction hearing the juvenile court determines 

whether the allegations that the child comes within section 300 

(and thus within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction) are true, based 

on a preponderance of the evidence. (See § 355.) If the court 

finds jurisdiction under section 300, it proceeds to disposition.
18

“Although section 300 requires proof the child is subject to 

the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing 

[citations], the court need not wait until a child is seriously 

abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary 

to protect the child.” (In re Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at 

pp. 601-602; accord, In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 

[“‘Although there must be a present risk of harm to the minor, 

the juvenile court may consider past events to determine whether 

the child is presently in need of juvenile court protection.’”].) “A 

parent’s “‘[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions” 

if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’” 

(In re Cole L., at p. 602; accord, In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 

1036, 1048.)

After the juvenile court has assumed jurisdiction, “[]in any 

case in which a minor has been found to be a person described by 

Section 300 and the petitioner alleges new facts or 

circumstances . . . sufficient to state that the minor is a person 

described in Section 300, the petitioner shall file a subsequent 

petition.” (§ 342, subd. (a); see In re Barbara P. (1994) 

30 Cal.App.4th 926, 933 [“When a minor has been declared a 

dependent child and the department alleges new facts or 

circumstances sufficient to find that the minor should be found to 

be a dependent child, the department files a subsequent petition, 

alleging the new information.”].) “[A]ll procedures and hearings 

required for an original petition are applicable to a subsequent 

petition filed under this section.” (§ 342, subd. (b).) 

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings for 

substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (In re I.C.

(2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 892 [“the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional finding must be considered “‘in the light of the 
19

whole record’” ‘to determine whether it discloses substantial 

evidence’”]; In re R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633 [“‘In reviewing 

the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if 

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports 

them.’”].) Substantial evidence is “‘evidence which is reasonable, 

credible, and of solid value.’” (In re I.C., at p. 892; accord, In re 

Cole L., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 602.) “‘[W]e draw all 

reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings 

and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the 

light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note 

that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial 

court.’” (In re R.T., at p. 633; accord, In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 

766, 773; In re Cole L., at p. 602 [“while substantial evidence may 

consist of inferences, any inferences must rest on the evidence; 

inferences based on speculation or conjecture cannot support a 

finding”].) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is no 

evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

findings or orders.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; 

accord, In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-329.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the February 2022

Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Orders

Vanessa concedes that she used physical discipline on 

U.M., but contends there was not substantial evidence to support 

the jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivision (a), that 

U.M. was at substantial risk of physical harm as a result of 

Vanessa’s physical abuse of him or, under subsection (b)(1), that 

at the time of the jurisdiction hearing he had suffered or had a 

substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a 

result of her physical discipline of him.
20

We conclude substantial evidence supports the jurisdiction 

findings based on Vanessa’s physical abuse of U.M. As outlined 

above in greater detail, U.M. reported that Vanessa hit him with 

shoes, a water bottle, a phone, and a belt, as well as an open 

hand. A sheriff’s deputy observed a bruise on U.M.’s back above 

his waistline, consistent with where he stated he was hit with the 

belt. U.M.’s younger sister A.L. also stated Vanessa hit U.M. 

with a belt. The juvenile court credited A.L.’s corroboration of 

the allegation Vanessa hit U.M. with a belt. A.L. reported 

Vanessa “[‘]smacked [U.M.] on his butt and back. . . . [U.M.] gets 

hit with a ‘cinto’ (belt) by mom.’” She reported the belt was 

“brownish and blackish[,]” and belonged to “‘my dad.’” U.M.’s 

stepfather subsequently wore the belt matching A.L.’s description 

during his interview with the dependency investigator. He 

commented “‘there is only one belt and that’s the one I use.’”

Moreover, Vanessa’s failure to acknowledge her physically 

abusive conduct further supports the juvenile court’s finding her

physical abuse created a substantial risk of harm to U.M. (See 

In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of mother’s 

failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the 

minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not 

persist should the minor remain in her home.”]; accord, In re 

Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a 

problem one fails to acknowledge.”]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 

11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 [“[D]enial is a factor often relevant to 

determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior 

in the future without court supervision.”].)

The record also supports jurisdiction under former 

section 300, subdivision (b)(1), because U.M. “faced an ongoing 

risk of harm based on h[is] increasingly self-destructive behavior, 
21

behavior that mother simply could not control.” (In re R.T., 

supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 634 [jurisdiction upheld under subd. (b)(1) 

where mother admitted inability to discipline or control minor’s 

“rebellious” and “incorrigible” behavior of “acting out” and 

running away].) The record reflects U.M. and Vanessa had a 

longstanding pattern of conflict that exacerbated U.M.’s 

behavioral problems, including suicidal ideation, threatening 

family members, and self-harm. Vanessa blamed his refusal to 

submit to her parental authority for their problems and admitted 

she could not control him. “Whether it was [U.M.]’s misbehavior 

and disobedience, or mother’s inability to supervise or protect 

[U.M.], that initiated this cyclical pattern of conflict, does not 

matter here. The basis for jurisdiction under section 300(b)(1) is 

whether the child is at ‘substantial risk’ of ‘serious physical harm 

or illness.’ . . . [G]iven the substantial risk of harm that [U.M.] 

faced, there is little question that mother was unable to 

‘adequately’ supervise or protect [U.M.] as required under 

section 300(b)(1).” (Id. at pp. 634-635.)

Because substantial evidence supports dependency 

jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), based

on Vanessa’s physical abuse of U.M., we need not consider the 

other basis for jurisdiction—the parents’ failure or inability to 

provide appropriate care and supervision to U.M. given his 

mental and emotional issues, under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1).

5 (See In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773 

5 The Department contends Vanessa’s jurisdictional 

contentions should be dismissed as nonjusticiable because she 

does not challenge the jurisdiction findings regarding Ul.M.’s

limited ability to provide ongoing care and supervision to U.M. 
22

[“‘When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its 

assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s 

jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s 

finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory 

bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is 

supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing 

court need not consider whether any or all the other alleged 

statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the 

evidence.’”]; accord, In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 774; 

In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 328-329.)

C. Substantial Evidence Also Supports the October 2022

Jurisdiction Findings and Disposition Orders

We conclude substantial evidence also supports the 

jurisdiction findings based on Vanessa’s subsequent physical 

abuse of U.M. alleged in the section 364 petition. 

Here, Vanessa claimed and U.M. did not dispute they had a

physical altercation in which 12-year-old U.M. apparently hit 

Vanessa in the face. As outlined above in greater detail, U.M. 

“[W]here jurisdictional findings have been made as to both 

parents but only one parent brings a challenge, the appeal may 

be rendered moot.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) 

However, where, as here, “a case is moot because one parent 

appealed and not the other, but the findings against the parent 

who has appealed are based on more serious conduct, it may 

serve the interest of justice to review the parent’s appeal.” (Id. at 

p. 286; see id. at p. 282 [reviewing court has “‘inherent 

discretion’” to reach the merits of an appeal even where case is 

moot].) Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to consider 

Vanessa’s jurisdictional contentions on the merits.
23

stated that Vanessa grabbed his hair and pulled it as she made 

him leave the home, while she cursed at him. Vanessa denied 

pulling his hair, but the reporting party spoke with U.M.’s 

sibling, who confirmed Vanessa pulled U.M.’s hair. The

neighbor, A.G., stated that when U.M. arrived at his home, U.M. 

ran his hand through his hair and it was “shedding.” This was 

not the first time U.M. had complained to A.G. about Vanessa

hitting him. A Department social worker saw red spots on U.M.’s 

head the following day and that he was still shedding hair. U.M. 

and Ul.M. reported that U.M. had bruises on his legs, back and 

thigh area, after the May 25, 2022 incident.

Under these circumstances, Vanessa’s response was not 

appropriate discipline. Pulling a 12-year-old child out of the 

house by his hair until it is falling out, leaving red spots on the 

child’s scalp still visible the next day, is not reasonable

disciplinary conduct. Such a response from a parent is 

unwarranted, even if the child struck the adult in the face during

an argument, and is excessive punishment under the 

circumstances. Use of physical force to this extent against U.M. 

is also indicative of Vanessa’s reluctance or inability to put into 

practice her court-ordered skills programs ordered at the 

section 300 disposition, despite the juvenile court having already 

made findings about the risk of harm to U.M. from Vanessa’s 

physical abuse. Vanessa’s denial about the effects of her actions 

on U.M. is also relevant. (See In re Gabriel K., supra,

203 Cal.App.4th at p. 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one 

fails to acknowledge.”]; see also In re Esmeralda B., supra,

11 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044 [a parent’s denial of a problem may be 

probative to the determination of whether he or she is likely to 

modify the behavior in the future].) Rather than implementing 
24

appropriate skills or disciplinary strategies, Vanessa blamed 

U.M.’s father’s family for the current allegations, accused the 

Department of a scheme designed to “‘try[] to open a case and get 

kids removed,’” and refused access to investigators.

Accordingly, substantial evidence exists supporting the 

juvenile court’s findings that Vanessa physically harmed U.M. 

and that he remained at risk of harm, warranting jurisdiction 

under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction findings and disposition orders entered on 

February 15, 2022 and October 26, 2022 are both affirmed.

MARTINEZ, J.

We concur:

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

FEUER, J.