1

Filed 8/21/23 In re A.F. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re A.F. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

C096886

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C. G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. 

STKJDDP20220000095)

C.G., mother of the minors A.F. and A.P., appeals from the juvenile court’s 

disposition order removing the minors from her custody and placing the minors outside 

the home. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395) She contends there was insufficient 

evidence to support the removal order. Finding no merit in mother’s contention, we 

affirm.
2

BACKGROUND

I

Initial Dependency Proceedings

On March 7, 2022, the reporting party reported that A.F. (then age five years; the 

older minor) disclosed that her father hit her with a belt, struck mother in the eye, and 

pulled mother’s hair. The older minor was scared and hid under a blanket with A.P. (then 

age one year; the younger minor). On March 3, 2022, a social worker interviewed the 

older minor who disclosed that law enforcement was often called to the home. The older 

minor gave conflicting statements initially but after the social worker reminded her about 

the importance of telling the truth, she stated that father hits mother “ ‘all the time.’ ” 

She was afraid of her father because “he hits her with a belt every day.” The school

disclosed that the older minor was frequently returned to the school, because no one was 

at the bus stop to take her home, and she was absent or late for school dozens of times. 

The school principal stated that a restraining order was not located in the older 

minor’s file, but mother had called the school at the beginning of the school year to tell 

staff not to provide father any information regarding the older minor. The principal 

reported that the manager of a trailer park where the family lived made numerous reports 

to the school about the ongoing issues with domestic violence, including an incident 

where mother was on the hood of a car, while the older minor locked herself and the 

younger minor in their trailer, until a neighbor retrieved the minors and took them into 

their trailer. 

Mother told the social worker that father did not live with her and that she had a 

criminal protective order against him that allowed for peaceful contact to exchange the 

minors. The social worker saw two shattered windows on the front passenger side of the 

family’s trailer, a window with glass falling out, and a disorganized and dirty trailer. 

Mother denied that the older minor locked herself in the trailer and said that during an 
3

argument with father, she could not find the older minor because a neighbor hid the 

minor from her, which prompted her to call the police. 

On March 7, 2022, the social worker learned that law enforcement responded to 

mother’s home 10 times over the last six months and that the father had violated the 

restraining order. Mother also had a history of being the aggressor in some of the 

domestic violence incidents. Mother claimed that father owned the trailer, and she was 

being evicted. 

The trailer park manager told the social worker that mother was being evicted, she 

saw father leaving the home the previous day, and father’s car was parked next to the 

mobile home park over the weekend. The social worker interviewed the older minor who 

recanted many of her prior statements. The social worker interviewed father who stated 

he was the biological father of both minors but was not on the older minor’s birth 

certificate. He lived with his brother but owned the trailer. He denied any physical 

discipline of the older minor or any domestic violence in front of the minors. The social 

worker spoke to a maternal relative who reported that the situation between mother and 

father was ongoing, mother had previously exposed her children to neglect and abuse, 

and mother had ongoing substance abuse issues. 

On March 14, 2022, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) 

filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minors alleging they came within the 

provisions of the code regarding failure to protect, serious emotional damage, and abuse 

of sibling. The petition also alleged mother had a history of drug use and an inability to 

protect the minors from domestic violence exposure. 

At the March 15, 2022, detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minors 

detained. 
4

II

Jurisdiction and Disposition

At the March 29, 2022, jurisdictional hearing, the court declared father was the 

presumed father of both minors. The Agency’s April 21, 2022, jurisdiction report noted

mother’s 2014 dependency case, in which a half-sibling was removed from mother due to 

substance abuse, her reunification services were terminated, her parental rights were 

terminated, and the minor was adopted. The report also contained the history of contacts 

with child welfare agencies for domestic violence and substance abuse in different 

counties from April 2006 to March 2022. The report attached police reports regarding 

mother’s and father’s various contacts with law enforcement, along with a report from the 

school showing the older minor’s numerous unexcused absences and tardiness. 

The Agency’s June 17, 2022, disposition report reflected mother’s history of 

contacts with law enforcement due to substance abuse and domestic violence. The 

Agency reported that mother previously coached the older minor to say that father did not 

hit her or mother. Finally, it was reported that mother was frequently late for visits, 

interrupted father’s visits, refused to follow directives from the visitation monitor, and 

instructed the older minor to ignore the monitor. The Agency reported its concern that 

mother failed to engage in any services aside from a single counseling session. 

At the June 28, 2022, contested jurisdictional hearing, mother testified and denied 

any ongoing substance abuse. She and father argued but there was no domestic violence. 

But mother admitted she and father had been arrested for domestic violence. A criminal 

protective order was issued to protect her, but she went to court to have it removed. 

Mother denied various incidents involving domestic violence with father, incidents that

were documented in police reports and captured on a video made by father and viewed by 

police officers. The social worker’s report about the conditions of the trailer was 

inaccurate but mother admitted that two of the trailer’s windows were broken and there 
5

was broken glass. Father also denied the Agency’s allegations against him. Mother’s 

neighbor denied witnessing any domestic violence between mother and father. 

The juvenile court found that there was a veracity issue and found the allegations 

of the petition true.

The Agency’s July 8, 2022, supplemental disposition report showed that mother’s 

reunification case plan consisted of compliance with required drug tests, compliance with 

court orders, individual counseling, family counseling, and parenting education. Mother 

had engaged in individual counseling but refused additional services and continued 

inappropriate behavior during supervised visits, such as coaching the older minor. 

Mother also missed visits and frequently failed to confirm visits. 

At the August 16, 2022, contested dispositional hearing, mother’s counsel 

submitted on the report and opposed the recommendation to bypass services. The court 

adopted the proposed findings and orders in the June 2022 disposition report that 

included removal of the minors. 

On January 6, 2023, the juvenile court entered an order granting mother 

reunification services. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in removing the minors because there 

was insufficient evidence of a substantial danger to the minors if they remained in her 

care, and the juvenile court failed to consider other reasonable means to protect the 

minors without removal. We disagree.

To support an order removing a child from parental custody, the juvenile court 

must find clear and convincing evidence “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to 

the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if 

the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s 

physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s 
6

. . . physical custody.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 361, subd. (c)(1); see In re T.W. (2013) 

214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) 

“A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of (1) parental inability to 

provide proper care for the minor and (2) potential detriment to the minor if he or she 

remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor 

need not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on 

averting harm to the child.” (In re T.W., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)

 When reviewing removal findings, “ ‘[w]e review the record in the light most 

favorable to the trial court’s order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from 

which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings based on the clear and 

convincing evidence standard.’ ” (T.J. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229, 

1239, italics omitted; see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1004-1005.) 

Mother bears the burden of showing the juvenile court’s findings and orders are not 

supported by substantial evidence. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) 

She has not met her burden.

At the August 16, 2022, contested dispositional hearing the court had the 

testimony from the jurisdictional hearing and the Agency reports. The minors were

initially removed due to multiple reports of domestic violence, father hitting the older 

minor with a belt, the older minor’s extensive absences from school, and unsafe living 

conditions. Mother’s history of contact with child welfare agencies for domestic violence 

and substance abuse, in different counties dating from April 2006 to March 2022, was 

well-documented. Law enforcement responded to mother’s home for domestic violence 

and restraining order violations 10 times over the six months prior to the initial detention. 

Mother’s claims that there was no domestic violence were contradicted by the older 

minor’s initial reports to the school and social worker—prior to evidence of coaching—as 

well as the trailer park manager’s reports and the maternal relative’s reports. The

juvenile court reasonably determined that there was a veracity issue with mother’s and 
7

father’s testimony at the jurisdictional hearing. Additionally, the Agency’s report 

attached multiple police reports regarding domestic violence and a report from the school 

showing the older minor’s numerous unexcused absences and tardiness. Further, mother 

repeatedly refused to engage in services and visit the minors. During the five months 

between detention and the contested disposition hearing, there is little evidence mother 

made any meaningful change to reduce the risk of harm to the minors. And mother 

continued to deny putting the minors at risk. 

Nevertheless, mother claims the Agency failed to consider reasonable efforts to 

prevent removal, such as instituting a safety plan so the minors could remain in the home. 

Such efforts would ultimately depend on mother’s willingness to engage in services and 

cooperate with the Agency, and there is no evidence of that given mother’s refusal to 

engage in most offered services. 

Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that the 

minors would be at risk of harm if returned to mother, and there was sufficient evidence 

to support the juvenile court’s finding that there were no reasonable means to protect the 

minors without removing them from mother’s custody. 
8

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

 /s/

MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/

DUARTE, Acting P. J.

 /s/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.