Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The case involved two young children, three-year-old I.S. and one-year-old M.S., whose parents had a documented history of intimate partner violence dating to 2023, including five documented incidents between July and October 2023. In one, father strangled and slapped mother, leading to his arrest and convictions for misdemeanor battery and violation of a court order; in December 2024 a three-year criminal protective order issued against him. On June 29, 2025, father pushed mother into a wall and squeezed her neck during an argument in front of the children, bringing the family back to the department's attention; on July 23 the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services filed dependency petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.
On August 22, 2025, after an uncontested hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petitions, adjudged the children dependents, and let the parents retain custody with family maintenance services, including parenting courses and a 16-week anger management program for father. The department had recommended against removal, contingent on safety plans. Over the following months, social workers observed father's erratic behavior, the parents argued during supervised exchanges, and father deviated from a safety plan. On October 27 the department obtained a protective custody warrant, and on October 28 filed a section 387 supplemental petition seeking removal.
The juvenile court detained the children and placed them with father's uncle. After a two-day hearing on December 18, 2025, and January 21, 2026, the court on January 30, 2026 sustained the section 387 petition, found by clear and convincing evidence that the children faced substantial danger if returned to father's custody and that no reasonable means could protect them without removal, and ordered reunification services for father: parent orientation, a 16-week anger management program, counseling, a psychological evaluation, a substance abuse assessment and treatment, an aftercare relapse prevention plan, Codependency Anonymous twice weekly, and random drug and alcohol testing. Father timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, reviewing for substantial evidence the juvenile court's clear and convincing findings under section 361(c)(1). From 2023 to 2025 the parents repeatedly escalated verbal altercations into physical violence in the children's presence, producing father's arrests, a battery conviction, and a three-year protective order. Despite this history and the removal, father persisted in seeking contact with mother, spent multiple nights at her home, and violated a safety plan by trying to communicate during mother's video calls with the children. Asked whether domestic violence would recur with contact, he could neither confirm nor deny it.
The court stressed father's denial and minimization of the violence, his refusal to engage in court-ordered services, and his lack of insight into the risk he posed. Because a parent's denial of domestic violence increases the risk of recurrence, the juvenile court could reasonably find it highly probable that returning the children would endanger them physically and emotionally; father's contrary argument cited no legal authority.
The court also rejected the claim that the juvenile court failed to consider alternatives short of removal, such as supervised placement in uncle's home. The department's step-down visitation plan differed fundamentally from custody, was conditioned on no incidents, and father violated safety plans even under uncle's supervision. Given his hostility to social workers, deviation from exchange supervision, and refusal of services, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that no alternative short of removal would protect the children.
Key Takeaways
- Section 387 removal requires clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger under section 361(c)(1); appellate review is for substantial evidence only, deferring to credibility findings.
- A parent's denial and minimization of documented domestic violence, plus intent to resume contact with the other parent, can support findings that violence will recur and removal is necessary.
- A supervised step-down visitation plan is not equivalent to custody; the two confer different rights and oversight.
- Repeated safety-plan violations and refusal of court-ordered services can establish that no reasonable means short of removal would protect the children.
- Arguments first raised in a reply brief are not considered on appeal.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates the deferential substantial evidence review of section 387 removal orders in chronic intimate partner violence cases. It confirms that a parent's denial, lack of insight, and noncompliance with safety plans and services can independently support both the danger finding and the no-reasonable-means conclusion, and that a conditional visitation plan does not undermine removal when its conditions are violated. Practitioners should also note the court's refusal to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.