Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mother N.G. appealed orders from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 review hearing continuing dependency jurisdiction over her children A.V. (born 2017) and K.M. (born 2023) and continuing family maintenance services. Dependency began in September 2024 when the Department of Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition after Mother's third domestic violence arrest for scratching J.M.'s neck and punching his face in the children's presence. After Mother's no contest plea, the juvenile court sustained an amended count, found J.M. a nonoffending parent, removed the children, and released them to their respective fathers.
Mother's case plan included domestic violence and anger management programs. By July 2025, the court returned the children home while finding continued jurisdiction necessary. At the October 8, 2025 review hearing, the Department recommended terminating jurisdiction and granting joint custody, citing Mother's progress. Both fathers and Mother agreed the case should close.
Minors' counsel objected, requesting three more months based on A.V.'s statements that she did not feel safe with closure, that Mother yelled at her, and that she wanted more conjoint therapy. Counsel also noted missing progress letters from Mother's programs due to funding issues. The juvenile court, acknowledging the unusual departure from the Department's recommendation, continued jurisdiction for three months, ordered no corporal punishment, and directed continued programming.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the findings. Under section 364(c), a statutory presumption favors termination, making it the default when the agency recommends termination unless an objecting party establishes by a preponderance that conditions justifying jurisdiction exist or are likely to exist if supervision ends. Here, minors' counsel objected and the court found continued jurisdiction necessary based on A.V.'s safety concerns and the missing program letters.
Reviewing for substantial evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the juvenile court's determinations, the appellate court cited the full record: A.V.'s statements that Mother was yelling at her and that she did not feel safe if jurisdiction ended, Mother's three prior arrests for domestic violence in 2021, 2023, and 2024, statements from both fathers describing Mother's initiation of domestic abuse, and J.M.'s request three months before the review hearing that the mutual stayaway order remain in place. The court reasoned that a parent's past behavior can be relevant to current circumstances if there is reason to believe it will continue, and the juvenile court could reasonably find Mother's domestic violence would continue based on this combined evidence.
The court acknowledged Mother's commendable progress but emphasized that on substantial evidence review appellate courts do not reweigh evidence. It distinguished In re N.S., which lacked minor statements about safety concerns. The analysis extended to K.M., as the younger, more vulnerable child faced the same risk. Because A.V.'s statements coupled with Mother's history constituted substantial evidence, the court did not address the missing letters argument.
Key Takeaways
- Even when the agency recommends termination, the juvenile court may continue jurisdiction if an objecting party proves by a preponderance that conditions justifying jurisdiction exist or are likely to exist.
- A child's statements about feeling unsafe, combined with a parent's domestic violence history, can constitute substantial evidence supporting continued jurisdiction under section 364.
- On substantial evidence review, appellate courts defer to juvenile court findings and do not reweigh evidence of a parent's progress in services.
- Past domestic violence is relevant to current risk if likely to continue, and courts need not wait until a child is seriously injured to take protective steps.
- Risk findings as to one child extend to a younger sibling when the same underlying conditions place the more vulnerable child at the same risk.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the considerable deference appellate courts give juvenile courts on substantial evidence review in dependency cases, particularly when a child expresses safety concerns about closing the case. It confirms that the statutory presumption favoring termination of jurisdiction under section 364 can be overcome by an objecting party, even over the agency's recommendation, when the record contains evidence of ongoing risk.
The ruling also demonstrates how a child's statements to counsel about not feeling safe, combined with a parent's documented history of domestic violence, can suffice to continue jurisdiction even where the parent has made commendable progress and complied with services. It underscores that juvenile courts may act out of an abundance of caution to protect children without waiting for further harm to occur.