Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A.V., a 16-year-old, was the subject of dependency proceedings after two serious physical altercations with her mother, K.H. In January 2023, Mother struck A.V. in the face approximately five times with a Swiffer mop handle, causing a two-inch bleeding laceration that required emergency treatment. The Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau brought dependency proceedings, Mother received family maintenance services while A.V. remained in her care, and that case was dismissed with shared legal custody to both parents and physical custody to Mother.
In August 2025, the Bureau received allegations that Mother had hit and bit A.V. A.V. reported that during an argument about chores, Mother threw her down on a couch, pinned her face into the cushion, punched her multiple times in the face, and bit her arm, leaving teeth marks and a coaster-sized bruise. A.V. also reported that Mother had slapped her in the face about once per month since the prior case closed. A.V. was placed with her adult sister under a safety agreement, and the Bureau filed a dependency petition on November 17, 2025, alleging jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (c).
Following a contested hearing in February 2026, the juvenile court found jurisdiction on all three grounds as to Mother and under subdivision (b)(1) as to Father, found clear and convincing evidence supported removal, and ordered A.V. placed with her sister while both parents received reunification services. The court rejected characterizing Mother's conduct as discipline and described it as a continuance of a pattern of conduct. Mother appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of ongoing risk because A.V. was safely living with her sister by the time of the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (a). Either past nonaccidental serious physical harm or a substantial risk of such harm in the future suffices. The evidence showed A.V. sustained serious physical harm from Mother's repeated attacks: the 2023 incident resulted in a sizeable, bleeding facial laceration requiring hospital treatment, while the 2025 altercation left teeth marks and a coaster-sized bruise on A.V.'s forearm. The court found Mother acted intentionally in both incidents, rejecting any characterization of her conduct as reasonable discipline.
The court further held that even if the individual incidents did not support jurisdiction standing alone, they were part of a pattern of physical abuse warranting jurisdiction based on the risk of future harm. The court noted A.V.'s report that Mother routinely slapped her between the two serious incidents, Mother's own acknowledgment that tools from her prior case plan did not work when A.V. was in her space, and A.V.'s willingness to visit Mother only with a therapist present, supporting a finding that A.V. continued to fear her.
The court rejected Mother's argument that her compliance with the safety plan and A.V.'s placement with her sister eliminated any ongoing risk. Relying on In re L.B. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 402, the court held it was appropriate to consider the risk arising from Mother's continuing custody rights regardless of her failure to exercise those rights during the proceedings. Because substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under subdivision (a), the court affirmed without the need to address the other jurisdictional findings.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), based on two incidents of serious physical harm: a 2023 mop handle attack causing a facial laceration and a 2025 incident involving punching and biting that left visible marks weeks later.
- A parent's compliance with a safety plan and the child's temporary placement with a relative does not eliminate dependency jurisdiction if the parent retains custody rights and there is evidence of ongoing risk.
- Evidence of a pattern of physical abuse, including the child's report of monthly slapping between two serious incidents and the parent's failure to recognize her role in escalating conflicts, supports jurisdiction based on risk of future harm.
- When one jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court may affirm without addressing other challenged findings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that dependency jurisdiction may be based on either past serious physical harm or substantial risk of future harm, and that a parent's voluntary compliance with a temporary safety plan does not negate jurisdiction when the parent retains legal custody rights. The court's analysis emphasizes that the focus is on the parent's continuing legal authority and the risk that poses, not merely on the child's current physical location.
The opinion also illustrates evidence of ongoing risk: a pattern of escalating physical conflict, the parent's minimization of her conduct, her acknowledgment that previously learned conflict-resolution tools are ineffective, and the child's expressed fear of the parent.