1

Filed 6/7/24 In re B.H. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re B.H. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082619

(Super.Ct.No. J298091-96)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson, 

Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Thomas E. Shinton for Defendant and Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant D.R. (mother) challenges jurisdiction and disposition 

orders as to her six children, all of whom were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 She argues the dependency petitions 

were “facially deficient”; some of the sustained jurisdictional allegations lack the support 

of substantial evidence; and her constitutional rights were violated, both by depriving her 

of her right to “put on additional evidence” at the continued jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing for two of the children, and by what she characterizes as a violation of her “due 

process right to a speedy contested Jurisdictional hearing.”

We find some of the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings lack the support of 

substantial evidence, requiring reversal of the jurisdictional and dispositional orders for

four of the children. We otherwise affirm and remand the matter for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

This appeal involves all six of mother’s children: J.M. (born Oct. 2013), S.M. 

(born Nov. 2015), R.V. (born Aug. 2018), D.V. (born June 2019), G.H. (born May 2020) 

and B.H. (born April 2022). The children each share a last name with their father, whom

we will call father M., father V., and father H. None of the fathers are parties in this 

appeal.

A. Father H.

Mother and father H. married in October 2019, but separated in April 2023. Their 

separation was triggered by an incident of domestic violence—the first in their 

1

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

relationship, according to mother—where father H. destroyed property in the house (“the 

whole house was messed up”) and he pushed her. Mother called police and father H. was 

arrested. After the separation, by mutual agreement, mother had sole legal and physical 

custody of G.H. and B.H., and father H. visited with them. Mother understood that,

during visits, father H.’s mother “would be at [father H’s] house supervising him with the 

kids . . . .”

In June 2023, during a visit, father H. was arrested for driving under the influence 

of alcohol with G.H. and B.H. in the car. This was the most recent in father H.’s long 

history of criminal offenses, mostly related to driving under the influence, starting in 

2011 and including both misdemeanor and felony convictions. The two children were 

released to mother.

On July 20, 2023, a social worker with plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino 

County Child and Family Services (the department) met with mother. Mother told the 

social worker “she would not be allowing [father H.] to transport the children and the 

current plan is that [the paternal grandmother] will be transporting [G.H. and B.H.]” to 

visits.

Nevertheless, the very next day, father H. appeared sober to mother, and she “‘did 

not want to keep his children from him,’” so she let him pick up the two children for a 

visit. He was late dropping the children off, however, and when she called him he 

sounded intoxicated. Mother and a friend went looking for father H., and spotted him 

driving near his residence. Mother approached father H.’s car when he stopped at a 
4

stoplight and demanded that he return the children, who were both in the back seat. 

When it seemed to mother that father H. was about to drive off, she “hit him in the face 

and got the keys out of the ignition, and that’s when the cops showed up.” Father H. was 

again arrested for drunk driving, and mother was arrested for domestic violence.

Based on those events, father H. was charged with driving under the influence, his 

12th such charge (though some of the charges did not result in convictions). The 

prosecutor decided not to pursue any charges against mother. Father H., however,

expressed to a social worker “concerns regarding [mother’s] mental health, and substance 

abuse,” and he showed a social worker “several videos” of her “being verbally aggressive 

towards him in front of their children.” 

On July 26, 2023, in family court, father H. requested a domestic violence 

restraining order against mother. The only domestic violence he alleged is the incident 

on July 21, 2023, and he omitted from his description of those events that he had been 

arrested for driving while intoxicated. Our record does not include the family court 

proceedings. Nevertheless, mother has represented (and the department has not disputed) 

that father H. failed to appear for an August 17, 2023, hearing to consider a permanent 

restraining order, so his request was dismissed and the temporary restraining order the 

court had issued was dissolved.

B. Father M. and Father V.

Mother told a social worker father M. had been incarcerated during their 

relationship for an incident of domestic violence—again, according to mother, the only 
5

one during their relationship—and she had full custody of J.M and S.M. Both J.M. and 

S.M. nevertheless had “consistent contact” with father M. through weekend visits, and 

both children said they felt “safe” with both parents. Father M. confirmed to the social 

worker he had been incarcerated for a year and a half for domestic violence against 

mother, and there was still a restraining order in place against him related to those 

charges. 

Mother told the social worker father V.’s whereabouts were unknown, and he had 

no contact with D.V. or R.V.

C. Procedural History

In August 2023, the department filed dependency petitions alleging that all six 

children came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect). As to G.H. and 

B.H., the department alleged both parents engaged in domestic violence in the children’s 

presence; father H. has a history of alcohol abuse that impaired his ability to care for the 

children, and mother knew or should have known about that history; and mother has 

“ongoing mental health problems, which limits her ability to provide adequate care [for

the children].” 

As to S.M. and J.M, the department similarly alleged mother “has ongoing mental 

health problems,” adding the allegation father M. knew or should have known that 

mother had “diagnosed mental health [problems]” limiting her ability to adequately care 

for his children. The department also alleged father M. had engaged in domestic violence 
6

in the presence of J.M. and S.M., and father M. knew or should have known mother had 

“a problem with anger management” that placed the children at risk. 

As to D.V. and R.V., the department included similar allegations about mother’s 

“ongoing mental health problems,” and that father V. knew or should have known about 

mother’s “diagnosed mental health” problems and “problem with anger management.”

The department also alleged D.V. and R.V. came within section 300, subdivision (g) (no 

provision for support), because father V.’s whereabouts were unknown. 

Amended petitions for S.M., J.M., D.V., and R.V. added an allegation under 

subdivision (b)(1) about mother engaging in domestic violence in their presence.

On August 14, 2023, mother, father H., and father M. were present for the 

detention hearing. The court ordered the children detained, ordered supervised visitation 

for all the parents, and set the jurisdiction and disposition hearing for September 6, 2023.

The department’s jurisdiction/disposition report recommended the allegations of 

the petitions be sustained except for the section 300, subdivision (g), allegation about 

father V.; the social worker had contacted him, and he expressed his intention to 

participate in the dependency proceedings. The department recommended family 

reunification services for all the parents.

All six children had been placed with their maternal grandmother. The children 

were “doing exceptionally well”; mother had moved out, and the children were

“adjusting to living in their own home” with the maternal grandmother as their caretaker. 

But the department had not yet completed its interviews, and case plans for the parents 
7

were still being designed. On that basis, at the September 6, 2023, initial jurisdiction 

hearing, the department requested a continuance. Minors’ counsel and all three fathers’ 

counsel either joined or expressly submitted to the department’s request. 

On appeal, mother describes her trial counsel’s comments as an “objection” to a 

continuance, but the record does not support that characterization. Mother’s counsel said 

he did not “mind” if the court set an “interim date” to let the department “get caught up to 

speed on what it needs to do,” and conceded the department’s need for more time to 

complete its work could be good cause for a continuance. Mother’s counsel emphasized, 

however, that he “want[ed] this hearing ASAP,” and he “would like to set a firm date” for 

a contested hearing because “it’s not up to [mother] just to wait around for the 

government to get their case complete.” Mother’s counsel estimated that the testimony

he intended to present would “take at least a day to get through,” so he requested not only 

one date be set but also a “backup,” so that the matter does not “keep getting delayed.” 

The court set contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings for October 12 and October 

30, 2023.

On October 11, 2023, the department filed an addendum report describing its 

interviews with the parents, and recommending case plans for each of them. Mother told 

the social worker she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression three years ago, 

and had “tried taking psychotropic medication,” but it “did not work for her.” In later 

testimony, mother specified this was postpartum depression and anxiety, and that 

although medication did not help, her symptoms “just went away” and she “felt better” 
8

within a short period of time. She said she “follow[ed] up” and was told “‘Okay. It 

sounds like you’re doing good.’” 

Mother acknowledged to the social worker she hit father H. during the July 21, 

2023 incident, and explained she did so to try to get the children away from him because 

he was driving while intoxicated. She said she knows father H. is an alcoholic, and she

called allowing him to continue to have contact with their children a “huge mistake.” She 

ended her relationship with father H. in January 2023, and he left the house in April 

2023. They remained legally married, but he had filed for divorce. She divorced father 

M. in 2016, and said she was a victim of domestic violence during that relationship. She 

“denied having any history of domestic violence” with father V., who she said had no 

contact with his children for at least three years. Mother denied having any anger 

management problems.

Father H. told the social worker he had “a history of domestic violence” with 

mother, but that she was the perpetrator. He denied being an alcoholic, saying he last 

used alcohol at the beginning of August 2023, and that he had been sober in 2019 when 

he and mother started their relationship. He started drinking again “due to mother’s lack 

of love towards him.” Father H. described mother as “Bi-polar,” “very violent,” and 

“verbally abusive to him,” including in front of their children. He said the children 

would run out of the room when mother was “‘being evil,’” as G.H. would call it.

Father M. admitted to the social worker that he was the perpetrator of domestic 

violence against mother. He said he was working full time and enrolled in a trade school, 
9

but currently homeless due to child support payments to mother. Before the dependency, 

he saw his children every other weekend. The social worker described father M. as 

having “a very negative attitude during the interview,” including by referring to mother 

as “‘crazy’” and “the one that got him ‘locked up.’”

Father V. told the social worker he had had no contact with his children since 2019 

because mother “made it very difficult for him to see” them. He expressed regret that he 

had not followed up in family court. He said he “understands” mother “has moved on 

with her life, however, he would like custody of his children,” and he would complete 

“whatever services are required by the Court.”

At the hearing on October 12, 2023, mother’s counsel submitted a motion to 

strike, arguing father H.’s statements about mother’s mental health, described in the 

department’s addendum report, should be stricken. Mother also submitted a request for a 

restraining order protecting mother, G.H., and B.H. from father H.2 In her supporting 

declaration, mother alleged a “major catalyst” for father H. moving out in April 2023 was 

the “domestic violence incident where he pushed mother and destroyed some property” at 

their house. She also cited father H. placing the children at risk by driving with them 

while intoxicated, and derogatory text messages he sent her in August and October 2023. 

2 Mother only submitted a form JV-245 Request for Juvenile Restraining order. 

She did not initially include the required form JV-250 Notice of Court Hearing and 

Temporary Restraining Order; she submitted that form, together with a supplementary 

declaration regarding new “harassing and threatening messages” from father H., on 

October 17, 2023. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.620(b), 5.630(c)(3).) The court 

granted a temporary restraining order on October 17, 2023, and set a hearing to review 

the request for October 30, 2023.
10

The juvenile court lodged the motion to strike and request for a restraining order, but 

reserved ruling on them. The social worker who authored the initial and addendum 

jurisdiction and disposition reports testified.

At the continued hearing on October 30, 2023, the court heard testimony from a 

second social worker—the one who authored the detention report—and from mother. 

Mother’s counsel ran out of time, however, to complete his direct examination of mother, 

particularly with respect to matters relating to her request for a restraining order against 

father H. The juvenile court confirmed with mother’s counsel that the remaining 

testimony would not relate to father V. Having done so, at the request of the department, 

the court ordered R.V. and D.V. to have an extended, 29-day visit with father V., and 

continued the “in-progress” jurisdiction and disposition hearing as to them until 

December 18, 2023. It set November 2, 2023, as the date to continue the “in-progress 

hearing” as to the other four children.

On November 2, 2023, mother’s testimony was completed, and there were no 

further witnesses. The juvenile court overruled mother’s evidentiary objections to 

statements by father H. described in the department’s reports. The parties agreed to a 

stipulation to how mother would testify about her current progress in services, and her 

intentions to pursue a permanent restraining order against father H.

3

 The parties’

3

The juvenile court in fact issued a permanent restraining order against father H. 

on November 20, 2023.
11

arguments on jurisdiction and disposition were started on November 2, 2023, and 

completed on November 7, 2023.

The juvenile court found father H.’s and father M.’s children came within section 

300, subdivision (b)(1). It found the allegations against father H. to be true. The court 

found true that mother knew or should have known father H. had a history alcohol abuse 

that impaired his ability to care for B.H. and G.H. The court found “no evidence” mother 

currently had any mental health problem, but amended the allegations about her mental 

health to reflect instead “a history” of mental health issues, and found the related

allegations as to all four children true as amended. It similarly amended the domestic 

violence allegations against mother as to G.H. and B.H., finding true that she “has a 

history” of engaging in domestic violence. The court specified that it did not view 

mother’s act of punching father H. on July 21, 2023, when he was driving intoxicated 

with G.H. and B.H. in the car, as an act of domestic violence. The court found true as 

pleaded the domestic violence allegations in J.M.’s and S.M.’s petitions. At the 

department’s request, the court dismissed the allegation that father M. knew or should 

have known mother had a problem with anger management. The court ordered family 

reunification services for mother, father H., and father M.

In December 2023, the department reported there were “no current concerns for 

substance use or abuse” by father V. His extended visits with R.V. and D.V. were going

“exceptionally well”; the children appeared to be “bonded to their father” and “thriving in 

his care,” with “no problems or concerns . . . reported.” The department recommended 
12

the jurisdictional allegations against father V. be dismissed, and the allegations against 

mother be found true as amended to reflect “a history of” mental health problems and 

domestic violence. For disposition, the department recommended R.V.’s and D.V.’s 

dependency cases be dismissed with orders granting sole physical custody to father V., 

joint legal custody for mother and father V., and weekly supervised visitation for mother. 

Mother’s counsel objected to the juvenile court “refusing to allow [mother] to continue 

her testimony.” Counsel said mother was prepared to testify father V. failed to provide 

child support or try to obtain custody or visitation with the children for the previous four 

years. Counsel also made an offer of proof that mother had completed her services, 

including 16 hours of domestic violence classes, and that she would testify “to how she 

has benefitted from her classes, how she’s learned from these classes, that the children 

are safe in her care, that she has been their primary parent their entire life, that there is no 

risk of harm or concern with the children in her care.” Counsel also argued that the 

hearing was “well more than 120 days after the initial detention,” and the “proper 

remedy” was “dismissal.” 

After hearing arguments from the parties, the court issued orders following the 

department’s recommendations and terminating dependency jurisdiction over R.V. and 

D.V.

II. DISCUSSION

Before turning to mother’s evidentiary arguments, we first briefly address her 

argument the dependency petitions are “facially deficient.” She concedes “some case 
13

law” holds any insufficiency in the dependency allegations is “waived if not raised.” 

This is an understatement. There are a few cases holding an appellant may raise for the 

first time on appeal a challenge to the facial sufficiency of dependency petition

allegations. (E.g., In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 396-397 (Alysha S.); In re 

Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126 [following Alysha S. without substantial 

analysis].) Most appellate authority considering the issue, however, particularly in the 

last 20 years, has rejected that approach. (See In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 

1626, 1637-1640 [discussing history of “split in authority,” siding with cases finding 

waiver, and “updating” the reasoning supporting that conclusion].) 

We, too, are unpersuaded by Alysha S. and similar cases. “[B]y its own terms,” 

the Code of Civil Procedure provision Alysha S. applies, section 430.80, “does not apply 

to dependency proceedings.”

4

 (In re David H., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1640.)

Moreover, “the statute is inconsistent with the purposes of juvenile dependency law.” 

(Ibid.) “Allowing parties to challenge the facial sufficiency of a [dependency] petition 

for the first time on appeal conflicts with the emphasis on expeditious processing of these 

cases so that children can achieve permanence and stability without unnecessary delay if 

reunification efforts fail.” (Ibid.) “Enforcing the forfeiture rule requires parties to raise 

4

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.80 governs waiver by failure to object by 

demurrer or answer to pleadings in civil actions, and applies to a “party against whom a 

complaint or cross-complaint has been filed” and a “party against whom an answer has 

been filed.” It is not among the Code of Civil Procedure sections expressly incorporated 

into the Welfare and Institutions Code. (See § 348; In re David H., supra, 165 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1640.)
14

such issues in the juvenile court where they can be promptly remedied,” for example, by 

amending the petition to conform to proof. (Ibid.) We therefore do not agree with 

mother that we should address her forfeited facial challenges to the petitions. We turn to 

her evidentiary arguments.

The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child if the department establishes by a 

preponderance of the evidence that allegations made under section 300 are true. (§ 355; 

In re Jonathan B. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119.) Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) 

applies when “‘“[t]he minor has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the minor will 

suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her 

parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the minor.”’” (In re T.V. (2013) 217 

Cal.App.4th 126, 132.) Jurisdiction findings under section 300 require evidence the child 

is subject to a defined risk of harm at the time of the hearing. (In re T.V., supra, 217 

Cal.App.4th at p. 132.) We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

substantial evidence. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)

In dependency matters, as a general rule, “‘“[a]s long as there is one unassailable 

jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate.”’” (In re D.P.

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283; accord In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 [“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,” without considering the adequacy of the evidence in 

support of “other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction”].) Additionally, “[b]ecause 
15

the juvenile court assumes jurisdiction of the child, not the parents, jurisdiction may exist 

based on the conduct of one parent only.” (In re A.R. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1146, 

1150.) In other words, once it is determined that jurisdiction was properly assumed based 

on one parent’s conduct, “we need not consider jurisdictional findings based on the other 

parent’s conduct.” (Ibid.; accord In re D.P., at pp. 283-284.)

Here, the jurisdictional findings as to G.H. and B.H. that father H. “has a history 

of alcohol use which impairs his ability to adequately take care of [them]” are 

unassailable. Within about a month, father H. was arrested twice for driving under the 

influence of alcohol with G.H. and B.H. in the car. This is ample evidence of his failure 

or inability to protect the children from a substantial risk of physical harm under section 

300, subdivision (b)(1). In arguments below, mother properly conceded the juvenile 

court had jurisdiction over G.H. and B.H. on that basis, and she has not argued otherwise 

on appeal.

Mother contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding she knew or 

should have known about father H.’s history of alcohol use, and failed to protect their

children adequately. We disagree with her assessment. Perhaps she did not know the full 

extent of father H.’s criminal history related to drunk driving. Nevertheless, she admitted 

knowing of a 2020 arrest for drunk driving and the recent arrest in June 2023. She spoke 

with a social worker on July 20, 2023, and agreed that the children should not drive with 

father due to concern about his drinking and driving. Nevertheless, the next day, she 

allowed father H. to transport the children for a visit. While she tried to retrieve the 
16

children from him once she realized he was again driving while intoxicated with them in 

the car, that does not negate that earlier failure. There is ample basis for the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional finding against her.

Thus, the juvenile court properly assumed dependency jurisdiction over G.H. and 

B.H. based on allegations against both mother and father H. A different analysis is 

required, however, for the other four children. They were not in the car when father H. 

was arrested for driving under the influence, and their dependency petitions include no 

allegations relating to his use of alcohol while they lived with him and mother.

The department argues mother is not “aggrieved” by the juvenile court’s decision 

to sustain jurisdictional allegations against father M., so she lacks standing to challenge 

them. In the department’s view, because father M. did not appeal, the jurisdictional 

allegations sustained against him are unassailable, and accordingly the juvenile court’s 

exercise of dependency jurisdiction over J.M. and S.M. must be affirmed.

We disagree. Generally, a parent is precluded from raising issues that do not 

affect his or her own rights. (In re Caitlin B. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1193.) 

Nevertheless, “‘[w]here the interests of two parties interweave, either party has standing 

to litigate issues that have a[n] impact upon the related interests. This is a matter of first 

party standing.’” (Ibid.) The juvenile court’s exercise of jurisdiction over mother’s 

children, even if based solely on allegations against father M., abridges her own parental 

rights. (§ 362, subd. (a); In re Carmen M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 478, 486.) Mother 
17

therefore has standing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional findings against father M., as well as those against her. 

For similar reasons, mother has standing to challenge the jurisdictional allegations 

sustained against her as to R.V. and D.V. “[W]hen a juvenile court’s finding forms the 

basis for an order that continues to impact a parent’s rights—for instance, by restricting 

visitation or custody—that jurisdictional finding remains subject to challenge, even if the 

juvenile court has terminated its jurisdiction.” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 276-

277.) That is exactly what has happened here. The juvenile court removed R.V. and 

D.V. from mother’s custody, granted full physical custody to father V., and restricted 

mother to weekly supervised visitation. Reversal of jurisdictional findings against 

mother would “call[] into question the validity” of those orders, so review “can grant 

[mother] effective relief.” (In re D.P., at p. 277.) Even though the dependency petitions 

for R.V. and D.V. have been dismissed, there is nothing moot about mother’s challenge 

to the jurisdictional findings.

5

We will start with the juvenile court’s finding that father M. had engaged in 

domestic violence in the presence of S.M. and J.M. Past incidents of domestic violence 

alone, while a predictor of future violence (In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 942), 

5

To the extent a different conclusion is possible on this record, we would 

nevertheless exercise our discretion to consider the matter on the merits. (See In re D.P.

14 Cal.5th at p. 282; see also In re Andrew S. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 536, 542, fn. 2 

[“‘When, as here, the outcome of the appeal could be “the difference between [a parent] 

being an ‘offending’ parent versus a ‘non-offending’ parent,” a finding that could result 

in far-reaching consequences with respect to these and future dependency proceedings, 

we find it appropriate to exercise our discretion to consider the appeal on the merits’”].)
18

cannot support a jurisdiction finding based on domestic violence: “Physical violence 

between a child’s parents may support the exercise of jurisdiction under section 300, 

subdivision (b) but only if there is evidence that the violence is ongoing or likely to 

continue . . . .” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717, overruled in part on 

other grounds by In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 278.)

In In re Daisy H., for example, the acts of domestic violence occurred at least two, 

and probably seven, years before the petition was filed, there was no evidence the 

children were exposed to that violence, and there was no evidence of any ongoing 

violence between the parents, who were separated. (In re Daisy H., supra, 14 Cal.4th at 

p. 717.) The court of appeal concluded this “evidence was insufficient to support a 

finding that past or present domestic violence between the parents placed the children at a 

current substantial risk of physical harm.” (Ibid.; see also In re Jesus M. (2015) 235 

Cal.App.4th 104, 113 [no substantial evidence to support domestic violence jurisdiction 

finding where “the parents had long been separated, the two incidents [the mother] could 

recall had occurred more than three years earlier, and there was no evidence of current 

violent behavior”].)

Here, there is evidence of only a single incident of domestic violence by father M.

against mother, the one resulting in his 2015 conviction for spousal battery. According to 

mother, that offense was the only incident of domestic violence between them during 

their relationship, and it was committed outside the presence of the children. There is no 

contrary evidence. Moreover, father M. and mother’s marriage ended in 2016. In the 
19

years since then, so far as can be determined from the record, they have coexisted without 

incident, despite interacting to the limited extent necessary for father M. to visit with their 

children. And their children both expressed that they feel safe with both of their parents. 

Thus, there is simply no evidence of any ongoing domestic violence between father M. 

and mother, nor is there evidence showing a likelihood past violence will recur. The 

juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings that the children come within section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), based on father M. engaging in domestic violence therefore lack the 

support of substantial evidence.

Of course, the allegation against mother that she has a history of engaging in 

domestic violence is not limited to domestic violence between her and father M. 

Evidence of domestic violence between her and father H. could also support dependency 

jurisdiction over any of the six children living with them.

Nevertheless, record evidence of mother perpetrating domestic violence, or failing 

to protect the children from domestic violence perpetrated by another, is sparse. 

Speaking to a social worker, father H. accused her of being a perpetrator of domestic 

violence in conclusory terms, describing her as “very violent.” In his application for a 

restraining order, however, the only incident of domestic violence he identified was when 

she hit him on July 21, 2023, as she tried to get the car keys from him while he was 

driving drunk with the children in the back seat. The juvenile court declined to treat that 

blow as an act of domestic violence, implying it found mother permissibly used 

reasonable force in defense of her children against a substantial risk of physical harm. 
20

(See, e.g., J.J. v. M.F. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 968, 976.) The department has not argued 

we should treat it differently in our analysis.

The department cites as “evidence” of mother engaging in domestic violence

“several videos of Mother being verbally aggressive towards Father H. in front of the 

children viewed by” one of the social workers. Importantly, however, that

characterization of those videos is the only evidence of them; the videos themselves were 

not introduced into evidence. And in her testimony, the social worker added no more 

details about what she meant in describing mother’s behavior as depicted in the videos as 

“verbally aggressive.” From this record, there is no nonspeculative basis to determine

whether mother’s behavior in the videos crossed the line from rude or profane to

demonstrating a substantial risk of physical harm or illness to the children, as is required 

to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).6

We find no merit in the department’s suggestion that the restraining order issued 

to protect mother, B.H., and G.H. on November 20, 2023, is “indicative of a current 

domestic violence relationship” between mother and father H. “at the time of the 

hearings.” Abusive text messages from a former partner are, of course, an appropriate 

basis for someone to seek and obtain a domestic violence restraining order, as mother did 

6 We note the department did not allege any of the children came within section 

300, subdivision (c), which applies when a child is suffering or at substantial risk of 

suffering serious emotional damage. Such an allegation might tend to fit more easily 

with evidence of abusive behavior that is only verbal, and not physical. But it would be 

difficult to square with the social worker’s observation that the children seemed “happy 

and healthy.”
21

here. (See, e.g., § 213.5, subd. (a); Fam. Code, §§ 6211, subds. (a) & (b), 6300, 6301, 

subd. (b), 6320, subd. (c).) Such a restraining order is not evidence of a current 

relationship between victim and perpetrator, let alone one that could pose a risk of harm 

to their child. If anything, it is evidence of protective action taken by the victim, tending 

to weigh against a finding that parent was failing to protect the child from a substantial 

risk of harm.

We are left, then, with evidence of mother’s involvement in two incidents of 

physical domestic violence, both times as the victim. Once, father M. was violent 

towards her, after she had moved out and was ending their relationship. She involved the

police, he was arrested and criminally convicted, they divorced, and there was no more 

violence between them. On the other occasion, after her relationship with father H. had 

ended but while they were still living together, he became violent, trashing the house and 

pushing her. Mother moved out of the house temporarily, until father H. moved out, she 

involved the police and he was arrested, divorce proceedings were initiated (albeit by 

him), and there was no more violence between them. 

We see nothing in these facts tending to show mother “would nonaccidentally 

expose the children” to domestic violence, or that she “would fail to protect the children” 

from her partners’ foreseeable violent conduct. (In re Jonathan B. (2015) 235 

Cal.App.4th 115, 119-120.) On the contrary, they show mother responding with 

appropriate and effective action to protect both herself and the children in response to 
22

unforeseeable violence by two partners. That is not an adequate basis for dependency 

jurisdiction.

We disagree with the department’s suggestion that In re S.O. (2002) 103 

Cal.App.4th 453 is “instructive” here. In In re S.O., at issue was a jurisdictional finding 

about domestic abuse as to the mother’s youngest child, who was born while dependency 

proceedings for his older siblings were ongoing. (Id. at p. 460.) Those proceedings had 

been triggered by domestic violence against mother and sexual abuse of one of the older 

siblings by the father. (Id. at p. 456.) The mother testified that she was “unsure whether 

she planned to reunite” with the father. (Id. at p. 462.) The mother also repeatedly 

violated court orders by allowing the father unsupervised contact with the children. (Id., 

at p. 462.) And the mother admitted she had no plan for arranging supervised visits 

without the county welfare department’s assistance, “and indeed expected that Agency 

personnel would supervise the visits.” (Ibid.) On those facts, the court of appeal deferred 

to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding of a substantial risk the child would suffer 

serious physical harm due to the mother’s failure or inability to protect him adequately. 

(Ibid.)

Our different facts require a different conclusion. There is no evidence of mother 

vacillating about reuniting with father H.; they had been “on-and-off” during their 

marriage because of various “disagreements,” but nothing in evidence shows the 

relationship was anything but “off” after he pushed her in April 2023 and he was arrested 

for domestic violence. In June and July 2023, there was no court order forbidding father 
23

H. contact with the children, and mother’s understanding was that the visits she allowed

him to have would be supervised by his mother. Mother also had already coparented

with father M. for years without any recurrence of violence between them. On these 

facts, we find no substantial evidence supporting a conclusion that mother had or was

likely in the future to fail to protect the children against exposure to domestic violence.

There is also a dearth of evidence in support of the finding father M. knew or 

should have known mother has a history of diagnosed mental health conditions that limit 

her ability to adequately care for his children. Mother told a social worker in August 

2023 that she had been diagnosed about three years earlier with depression and anxiety. 

Mother and father M. divorced years before that diagnosis, in 2016. There is nothing in 

the record showing father M. knew or should have known of any diagnoses mother may 

have received after 2016. To be sure, he told a social worker mother was “crazy.” But 

that colloquial, non-expert evaluation does not demonstrate awareness that mother ever 

had a diagnosed mental health issue, nor is it evidence father M. should have known of 

such a diagnosis.

7

7

Father H. calling mother “Bi-polar,” or paraphrased statements in department 

reports from unidentified “family members” about mother having “mental health” 

problems, are similarly weak evidence, insufficient on their own to establish that mother 

suffers or suffered from diagnosed or diagnosable mental illness, or that father M. knew 

or should have known about any mental health issues mother may have had. That is 

particularly so in this case, because the social worker testified at the jurisdiction stage she 

could not recall if her reference to “family members” reporting mother to have mental 

health issues included anyone other than father H. and father M.
24

Nor is there any evidence that any mental health conditions mother might have, 

diagnosed or not, limited her ability to care for the children adequately. “The law is 

settled that harm may not be presumed from the mere fact of a parent’s mental illness.” 

(In re A.L. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1049-1050.) There must be some connection 

between the parent’s mental health issues and the physical harm or risk of physical harm 

to the child. (See ibid.; In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 830, abrogated on 

other grounds by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628.) The trial court found no evidence 

that mother currently suffered from any mental illness, let alone an illness that currently 

limited her ability to care for the children adequately. We agree with that assessment. 

The social worker observed the family home to be “clean and free of clutter with working 

utilities,” and in speaking with J.M. and S.M., both “appeared to be happy and healthy,”

free from abuse or neglect, and felt “safe with [their] mom.” There is also no evidence 

tending to show any past mental health issues were likely to recur, or that in the past they 

limited her ability to care for the children to the point that they were at risk of physical 

harm. The juvenile court therefore erred by sustaining, even as amended, the 

jurisdictional allegations about mother’s mental health.

In sum, none of the jurisdictional findings sustained against father M. or mother as 

to J.M. and S.M. withstand substantial evidence review. There is no evidence mother has 

a history of mental health problems limiting her ability to adequately care and supervise 

the children, let alone that father M. knew or should have known about such problems. 

There is no evidence of any current substantial risk of mother engaging in domestic 
25

violence with father M. or father H., or of mother failing to protect the children from 

domestic violence by either man. The similar findings against mother as to R.V. and 

D.V. also lack the support of substantial evidence, for the same reasons.

The same reasoning also means the jurisdictional findings as to G.H. and B.H. 

related to mother’s mental health and mother engaging in domestic violence also lack the 

support of substantial evidence. As discussed, however, the juvenile court properly took 

jurisdiction over them based on other sustained allegations that were supported by

evidence.

The lack of substantial evidence to support of any of the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional findings as to J.M., S.M., R.V., and D.V. requires reversal not only of the 

order adjudging them dependents, but also subsequent dispositional orders. (In re 

Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 565; In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 

128, 141.) That, in turn, moots mother’s argument that she was erroneously denied the 

opportunity to present additional evidence at the disposition hearing for D.V. and R.V.

Because we do not disturb the order adjudging G.H. and B.H. to be dependent 

children, we briefly address mother’s argument her “due process right to a speedy 

contested Jurisdictional hearing” was violated. “‘It is axiomatic that due process 

guarantees apply to dependency proceedings.’” (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 

987, 1006.) We assume that there is some degree of delay that, combined with a lack of 

good cause for it, would violate a parent’s due process rights. Nevertheless, nothing in 

the record supports the notion that these children’s cases were not heard in a reasonably 
26

expeditious manner, in accordance with the relevant statutes and mostly in accordance 

with mother’s own scheduling requests. She has not demonstrated any violation of her 

due process rights.

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s true findings on jurisdictional allegations as to G.H. and B.H.

regarding mother having a history of mental health problems and a history of engaging in 

domestic violence are reversed; in all other respects, the jurisdictional and dispositional 

findings and orders as to G.H. and B.H. are affirmed. The court’s jurisdictional and 

dispositional findings and orders as to J.M., S.M., R.V., and D.V. are reversed. The 

matter is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion and applicable law.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

MENETREZ

J.