Filed 8/11/26 In re B.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.W., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E087829
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2500293)
v. OPINION
J.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell and Prabhath Shettigar, Deputy
County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant J.W. (Father) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
finding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 with respect to his
daughter, B.W. (Minor, born May 2017), and the court’s exit order modifying Father’s
custodial time. Minor’s mother, S.O. (Mother), is not a party to this appeal.
Father asserts that he had implemented changes to protect Minor prior to the
jurisdictional hearing, thus there was no current risk of harm to Minor at the time of the
hearing. Father also contends that the juvenile court erred in sustaining an allegation
regarding emotional harm to Minor under section 300, subdivision (b). We affirm in
part, and reverse in part.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
Father’s household consists of Father and Father’s long-time girlfriend, A.T.
(Girlfriend). Girlfriend shares custody of her three daughters: A.B. (age 11), K.B.
(whose age is not listed in the record but who appears to be approximately the same age
as Minor), and C.B. (age 6). Although Girlfriend and Father are not married, Girlfriend’s
daughters were sometimes referred to by the Riverside County Department of Public
Social Services (DPSS) and the juvenile court as Minor’s stepsiblings, and we
occasionally do the same.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
specified otherwise.
2 This appeal specifically pertains to Father and Minor, but there are a number of
parents, stepparents, parental figures, half-siblings, and stepsiblings involved in Minor’s
life. For ease of reference, we have omitted reference to some of the family figures in
Minor’s life to focus only on those relevant to this appeal.
2
Mother’s household consists of Mother and her husband, Cr.O. (Stepfather).
Stepfather shares custody of his two children, including his daughter, C.O. (age 7;
Stepsister). Mother shares custody of Minor’s half-sister, L.E. (born April 2012; Half-
sister), who is Mother’s daughter with another individual.
Mother and Father litigated custody of Minor in family court in 2022. Included in
Mother’s custody request was a text message between her and Father wherein she
expressed concern on November 12, 2021, that Minor said K.B. was licking her private
parts, and Father responded: “[Minor] lies about everything cant [sic] tell the truth for
just about anything so I don’t believe that until I see it happen.” The family court granted
Mother and Father equal physical custody of Minor on a 2-2-5-5 schedule and joint legal
custody.
On September 8, 2025, DPSS received a referral regarding Stepsister after she was
diagnosed with having a contagious viral infection causing bumps on her genitals.
Stepsister disclosed during an interview with DPSS that Minor, with whom she shared a
bedroom in Mother’s home, had touched her genitals.
Minor confirmed to DPSS that she had touched Stepsister’s “private part” and that
they put each other’s hands in their pants, but claimed it was only on one occasion.
Minor also stated that Girlfriend’s daughter, K.B., had touched her inappropriately. She
said this behavior started at Father’s home with K.B., and that they would put their hands
in each other’s pants. Minor said the most recent time was a few weeks prior. A few
days after DPSS’s initial interview with Minor, she tested positive for the same virus as
Stepsister.
3
Mother and Stepfather told DPSS during their first interview that they would put
Stepsister and Minor into separate bedrooms and ensure that they would be supervised
when together. Mother confirmed that Minor and K.B. had a history of touching each
other inappropriately in their vaginal areas, and that Minor had another recent event with
K.B. with inappropriate touching. Mother stated that she wanted to enroll Minor in
therapy but that Father would not agree.
When DPSS interviewed Father, he acknowledged that Minor and K.B. had
previously engaged in sexualized behaviors with each other but he was not aware of any
recent incidents. He believed Minor learned inappropriate things from Half-sister while
at Mother’s home. Father stated that he wanted Minor and K.B. to have separate
bedrooms and ongoing supervision in his home, but he did not think Minor needed
therapy.
During Girlfriend’s interview with DPSS, she said that K.B. denied engaging in
any inappropriate behavior with Minor, but Minor recently asked K.B. if she wanted to
engage in inappropriate behavior. She disclosed that Minor and K.B. had touched each
other’s vaginal areas three years ago, and that when she and Father learned of it they
separated the girls and did not allow them to share a room for a year. They then assumed
the concerns were mitigated, so Minor and K.B. were now sharing a bedroom again,
along with C.B.
Girlfriend believed that Minor had contracted her virus from Stepsister, that
Mother and Stepfather were neglectful and giving the children viral infections, and that
Minor was learning sexual behaviors in Mother’s home. Girlfriend said that she did not
4
agree to Minor and K.B. having separate bedrooms, because her eldest daughter, A.B.,
just got her own bedroom and she did not think it fair to punish her children “[j]ust
because [Minor] does stupid things.” When the DPSS social worker pointed out that
K.B. was also engaging in inappropriate behaviors, Girlfriend said K.B. is not, and it is
just Minor trying to initiate.
A few weeks later, on September 22, 2025, Mother reported to DPSS concerns
that Minor was sleeping on a mattress on the floor in the dining room at Father’s house.
Mother also said she spoke to Father again about therapy for Minor, and Father told her
he believed Minor was learning the behavior from Half-sister and he had no concerns in
his household so he was not agreeing to therapy.
DPSS confirmed with Girlfriend that Minor, K.B., and C.B. were switching off
sleeping locations, with Minor sleeping in the living room while her children slept in the
bedroom, and vice versa. Girlfriend expressed frustration with the sleeping
arrangements, stating that she felt it was unfair if, for example, she had to supervise the
children while they have a slumber party and she would therefore not be able to sleep in
her own bed. She questioned how long the arrangement would have to continue, and
when the social worker stated that there would need to be ongoing supervision, Girlfriend
expressed frustration that it was going to be “ ‘forever’ ” and commented, “she guesses
this is her new life now.”
Girlfriend requested that Minor be interviewed by DPSS again because, according
to Girlfriend, Minor admitted she lied about the allegations and had learned the behaviors
from Half-sister. The DPSS social worker stated to Girlfriend that regardless of where
5
Minor learned the behavior, it was occurring in Girlfriend and Father’s home, so ongoing
supervision of the children was necessary, to which Girlfriend stated it was an
inconvenience and “CPS” was not going to buy her a new home to separate the children.
Father also confirmed with DPSS that Minor was switching off sleeping locations,
sleeping in the bedroom by herself on the weekends and in the living room by herself on
weekdays. Father expressed that he did not understand why they must do this in their
household when the behavior started in Mother’s household, and that the issue was in
Mother’s household, not his. Father said Minor told him she lied to “CPS” and the
behavior started in Mother’s home. Father did agree at this time to enroll Minor in
therapy.
On September 29, 2025, DPSS filed a joint petition pursuant to section 300 for
Half-sister and Minor3 With respect to Minor, the petition alleged pursuant to section
300, subdivision (b)(1), that Father demonstrated a limited ability to protect Minor
because he allowed her to sleep in the same room as her stepsiblings despite having
knowledge of the children having sexualized behaviors towards one another (allegation
b-1), and that both parents knew or reasonably should have known that the children were
engaging in sexualized behaviors with stepsiblings while in their care but failed to
intervene and protect the children (allegation b-2).
In October 2025, Half-sister confirmed to DPSS that Minor and Stepsister were no
longer sharing a bedroom in Mother’s home and that they were always supervised when
3 Although DPSS filed a joint petition for the children, Half-sister is not a subject
of this appeal.
6
together. Minor told DPSS that she and Stepsister were always supervised in Mother’s
home when they played together, but that she was not always supervised in Father’s
home when playing with K.B. and C.B. She stated that K.B. and C.B. are mean to her,
but that she has not had any further inappropriate interactions with Stepsister, K.B., or
C.B. Minor stated that she did not feel safe in Father’s home, and Girlfriend sometimes
“ ‘Bops’ ” her on the head.
As set forth in the October 2025 addendum report, K.B. stated to DPSS that Minor
had not touched her inappropriately, that when they play together they cannot have their
door shut, and that Girlfriend supervises them from the couch in the living room or puts a
camera in their room to watch them. K.B. also disclosed that Minor has her own cups
and plates in Father’s home, that Minor did not get as many presents as the other children
in Father’s home (i.e., Minor received only pajamas while the other children received
pajamas and toys) because she is in trouble and “ ‘[i]t is mainly [Minor] that has been
doing everything.’ ”
A.B. disclosed to DPSS that when the family has movie nights at Father’s house,
Minor goes to her room by herself while the rest of them are in the living room, which is
meant as a punishment for Minor’s behavior. A.B. confirmed that she and her siblings
received a variety of toys as gifts while Minor only received pajamas, that Girlfriend does
monitor Minor when she plays with the other children, and that Minor has her own
utensils in Father’s home because, according to Girlfriend, her saliva is contagious.
Father and Girlfriend wanted Minor to be interviewed again because they claimed
Minor disclosed more sexual behavior between Minor and Stepsister while Minor was in
7
Mother’s care. Girlfriend asked if she could pay $250 to have Minor put through a lie
detector test. When the DPSS social worker informed Father and Girlfriend that Minor
had already been through multiple interviews, including a forensic interview, and that a
lie detector test was inappropriate for a child, Girlfriend expressed frustration and Father
stated that he thought Mother was coaching Minor not to say anything.
At the initial hearing on October 14, 2025, the juvenile court found that there was
a prima facie showing that Minor and Half-sister were subject to section 300, and both
children were ordered to remain in the custody of their parents.
As set forth in the November 2025 jurisdiction/disposition report (J/D Report),
Minor stated that she had to sleep on the floor in the living room and none of Girlfriend’s
children had to sleep on the floor. Minor reported that Father would treat her differently
when Girlfriend’s children were around and would yell at her, that Girlfriend’s children
would make fun of her, and that Girlfriend would not speak to her since the DPSS
investigation began. Minor also informed DPSS that she had to take a shower outside at
Father’s home naked, because Girlfriend’s children were inside and she was not allowed
to be around them. Father confirmed that this happened on one occasion but showed the
social worker that although there were no walls around the shower, it was positioned
where no neighbors could see it. Minor also stated that Father told her that Mother was
putting thoughts into her head and trying to get her to lie, which Minor said was not true.
The J/D Report documented that Father and Girlfriend had changed custody
schedules so that Minor would not be in Father’s home at the same time as Girlfriend’s
children. Although not stated expressly, it seems Girlfriend’s children were also subject
8
to a dependency action, which was referenced in this case’s court proceedings as a
companion case, and which led to the change in Girlfriend’s custody schedule with her
children to keep them separated from Minor.
DPSS noted its concerns in the J/D Report that Father and Girlfriend were overly
focused on where the inappropriate touching was learned and not taking accountability
for what happened in their home. Father continued to believe Half-sister was exposing
Minor to inappropriate content. Father questioned whether the current custody
arrangement was going to have to remain in place forever, and expressed confusion
because Minor had contracted a communicable disease from Stepsister but Mother was
permitted to have custody of Stepsister and Minor at the same time. Father and
Girlfriend asked for clarification on why the children’s rooms needed to be changed,
since the sexual conduct did not occur at night. According to the J/D Report, Father and
Girlfriend seemed to feel the whole situation was an inconvenience.
Mother was described in the J/D Report as appearing cooperative. Mother, Half-
sister, and Stepfather all expressed concerns for Minor while in Father’s care and felt that
Father and Girlfriend were treating Minor poorly.
The J/D Report set forth DPSS’s recommendation that Minor be declared a
dependent child and that the parents receive family maintenance services.
At the November 17, 2025, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Mother’s counsel
noted that an order was made in the companion case that the minors (presumably
Girlfriend’s children and Minor) were not to be around one another at any time, and
alleged that Father had made at least one attempt to thwart that order. The juvenile court
9
ordered that its “prior order” to restrict the minors being in contact with one another “is to
remain in full force and effect” and that the parents were to make efforts to comply with
that order.4 The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was continued so that it could be heard
concurrently with the companion case.
As set forth in the December 2025 addendum report, on November 17, 2025,
DPSS received a message that Girlfriend requested custody of her children during a time
period that overlapped with Father’s custodial time with Minor.5 When contacted by
DPSS, Girlfriend seemed upset and said the overlap was only for two days, that she and
Father were doing everything they could to ensure the children did not interact with one
another, and that Father and Minor were going to be on vacation while she and her
children would be at the family home. Father stated that he was taking Minor camping
and that he understood there should be no crossover with Girlfriend’s children. When
asked a few weeks later, Minor initially stated that she had not been camping with Father
recently, but then stated they had gone camping at a lake in Arizona and that she had not
seen Girlfriend’s children other than at school.
In its December 2025 addendum report, DPSS changed its recommendation to
Mother being granted sole legal and physical custody of Minor, with Father having
4 The juvenile court had not made a prior order in Minor’s case to keep Minor
separated from Girlfriend’s children, so it appears the court was referencing the order that
was made in the companion case.
5 Based on the timing and the lack of any other events in the record that would fit
the description, this appears to be the attempt to thwart the juvenile court’s order referred
to by Mother’s counsel at the November 17, 2025, jurisdiction/disposition hearing.
10
visitation every other weekend with visits not taking place on the same weekends that
Girlfriend had custody of her children.
Per the December 2025 addendum report, Minor stated that Girlfriend was now
sometimes nice to her but was still continuing to ignore her for the majority of her visits
with Father. DPSS conducted a home assessment and confirmed that at Mother’s house
Minor had her own bedroom downstairs and the other children’s bedrooms were upstairs.
Mother and Stepfather reported that Minor was angry when returning from Father’s
custody and was emotional before going to Father’s home, making statements such as “ ‘I
can do it for two days.’ ”
In the December 2025 addendum report, DPSS expressed concerns about Minor
while in Father’s care, with significant blame placed on an eight-year-old child and
Girlfriend not treating Minor well. Per DPSS, Father and Girlfriend “do not seem to
understand that we are no longer concerned about the actual incident that occurred, but
how we are going to prevent it from happening in the future.”
On December 15, 2025, the jurisdiction and disposition hearing was continued
again in light of DPSS changing its recommendation.
As set forth in the February 2026 addendum report, Minor stated that Girlfriend
was not nice to her and called her the “N-word.” Minor noted there were some days over
the holidays when she was supposed to go to Father’s house but did not, and she was not
sure why. Mother reported that Father had given up several custodial days over the
holidays so that Girlfriend could spend time with her children, and had declined offers
11
from Mother to have Minor dropped off in the evening for a few days when she knew
Girlfriend’s children were not going to be present.
On February 3, 2026, DPSS filed an amended petition pursuant to section 300.
Added to allegation b-1 was the following sentence: “In addition, [Father] failed to
follow court orders and continued to allow ongoing contact between the child, [Minor]
and his girlfriend’s children, A.B., K.B. and C.B.” Allegation b-2 was revised to allege
that only Father (rather than both parents) knew or should have known that Minor was
engaging in sexualized behaviors with her stepsiblings and failed to intervene or protect
her. A new allegation b-3 was added, stating that Father “neglects the health, safety and
well-being of the child … in that the child disclosed the father is treating her differently
and making her shower outside naked in which it made her feel upset. Furthermore, the
father requires [Minor] to utilize different eating utensils than the rest of the family ‘so
they don’t get what she has;’ such conditions place [Minor] at risk of ongoing emotional
harm.” The box on the petition form was checked for section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and
no other subdivision boxes were checked.
At the February 3, 2025, jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Father’s counsel
argued that the incident underpinning allegations b-1 and b-2 at that point was five
months old and had been addressed, so there was no current risk of harm to Minor, and
the allegations about the outside shower and separate utensils were taken out of context.
Minor’s counsel confirmed that Minor felt the separate dishes were not for safety reasons
but instead meant as a punishment. Minor also confirmed to Minor’s counsel that
Girlfriend called her the “ ‘N’ word.”
12
The juvenile court found all three allegations in the amended petition true and
sustained the petition. It issued family court exit orders granting Mother and Father joint
legal and physical custody of Minor, with Father having custodial time every other
weekend and Girlfriend and her children not to be present during Father’s time with
Minor. Mother’s counsel was ordered to prepare the custody orders, and the dependency
action was ordered terminated upon the custody orders being filed.
DISCUSSION
A. ALLEGATIONS B-1 AND B-2
Father contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that Minor faced a
substantial risk of harm pursuant to allegations b-1 and b-2 because he had addressed the
situation and thus there was no current risk of harm at the time of the jurisdictional
hearing.
In order for the juvenile court to find that a child comes within its jurisdiction
pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), the following elements must be established:
“(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and
(3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or
illness.” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.) There must be a risk to the
child at the time of the jurisdictional hearing in order to meet the last element, “ ‘some
reason to believe the acts may continue in the future.’ ” (Id. at p. 824.)
We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings to see if substantial evidence
supports them, and we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
juvenile court’s findings and orders. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.) If substantial
13
evidence supports the findings and orders, “we affirm the order even if other evidence
supports a contrary conclusion.” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 168.)
The evidence reflects that Minor engaged in sexualized behavior with K.B.
potentially as far back as 2021 per Mother’s text messages to Father that were attached to
her custody request. Father’s response at the time was to dismiss Mother’s concerns and
say that Minor “lies about everything.” Even if Father was right about Minor lying in
2021 (although subsequent events evidence she was not lying), Father and Girlfriend
admitted to DPSS that sexual contact took place between Minor and K.B. three years
prior to the most recent incident. Father and Girlfriend had previously placed Minor and
K.B. into separate bedrooms to address the behavior, but then, after a year, switched back
to the two girls sharing a room along with K.B.’s younger sister, C.B. Father refused to
allow Minor to participate in therapy, as Mother requested, until DPSS became involved
and persuaded Father.
Throughout the DPSS investigation, Father and Girlfriend complained about it
being an inconvenience to keep Minor separated from Girlfriend’s children and
questioned whether this separation needed to continue long-term. They also questioned
why Minor needed to be in a separate bedroom from K.B. in the first place if the behavior
took place in Mother’s home and did not happen at night. They focused most of their
attention on punishing Minor while in their home and placing blame on Minor or other
children in Mother’s household. They pushed for Minor to be reinterviewed and
subjected to a lie detector test, and Father told Minor that Mother was putting ideas into
her head.
14
The change in Girlfriend’s custodial time with her children to keep them separated
from Minor took place just a few months prior to the jurisdictional hearing, and appears
to have been a result of the companion dependency case rather than voluntary action on
Father or Girlfriend’s part. During those few months, Father had already attempted at
least once to thwart the order and have custody of Minor while Girlfriend’s children were
in her custody.
Based upon the foregoing, the juvenile court could reasonably find that the
custody schedule that kept Minor separated from Girlfriend’s children was in place for a
short period of time relative to the years over which Minor’s inappropriate behavior with
K.B. took place, and there was at least one instance of Father attempting to thwart the
orders in that short time span. The court could reasonably conclude that Father was at
risk of backsliding and permitting Minor to be in the presence of Girlfriend’s children in
light of the fact that Father and Girlfriend were vocally unhappy throughout the
proceedings about having to rearrange their lives long term, repeatedly questioned the
need to separate the children, and seemed to believe that Minor’s behavior was only an
issue in Mother’s home. In fact, Father and Girlfriend had on a previous occasion placed
Minor and K.B. back into a shared bedroom after they believed the issue had been
resolved. Substantial evidence accordingly supports the juvenile court’s finding that the
circumstances at the time of the jurisdictional hearing exposed Minor to substantial risk
of harm.
15
The cases cited by Father, all of which discuss the need for current risk to Minor
to support a jurisdictional finding, do not assist him. They involve one-off incidents with
no evidence of an ongoing problem or incidents that took place many years before the
involvement of the juvenile court. (In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1025-2026
[car accident while father was driving under the influence was a “single episode of
endangering conduct” and no evidence either parent had a substance abuse problem]; In
re R.L. (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 221, 233 [car accident while father was driving under the
influence was a one-time incident and no evidence that either parent had a history of
alcohol abuse]; In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1454 [“the record contains
evidence that a single incident of domestic violence occurred more than seven years
before the hearing”]; In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 [physical violence
by father against mother took place two or seven years before the petition was filed].)
The instant case is clearly distinguishable. The juvenile court’s jurisdictional
finding was not premised on a one-time incident from many years ago. Instead, the
concerning behavior between Minor and her stepsiblings occurred repeatedly over the
course of three or four years and had recurred just a few weeks prior to DPSS initiating
its investigation. As discussed ante, the changes to the custody schedule to keep Minor
separated from Girlfriend’s children commenced only a few months prior to the
jurisdictional hearing. There is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s
finding of current risk of harm to Minor at the time of the jurisdictional hearing.
16
B. ALLEGATION B-3
With respect to Father’s claim that allegation b-3 was erroneous as pleaded
because it alleged a risk of emotional harm rather than physical harm to Minor, we agree.
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), the statute under which allegation b-3 was
pleaded, provides in relevant part that a child is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will
suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of ... [¶] …[t]he failure or inability of
the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child.”
In comparison, subdivision (c) of section 300 provides in relevant part that a child
is within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction where “[t]he child is suffering serious emotional
damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by
severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or
others, as a result of the conduct of the parent.”
Although Father and Girlfriend’s conduct toward Minor—including forcing her to
use a separate set of dishes and utensils from the rest of the family, calling her the “N-
word,” making her shower naked outside, isolating her from family events, giving her
inferior gifts compared to the other children, ignoring her, and generally treating her
poorly—is highly concerning and could have potentially formed a basis for dependency
jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), or alternatively modification of the
custody schedule in family court, it does not fall under the conduct contemplated by
section 300, subdivision (b). There is no physical harm or risk of physical harm to Minor
resulting from the conduct described in allegation b-3; thus, there is insufficient evidence
17
to support the court’s finding as pleaded. We therefore reverse the juvenile court’s
findings as to allegation b-3.
To be clear, our reversal of the allegation b-3 findings is not a basis for reversal of
the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, because we have affirmed the court’s findings
on allegations b-1 and b-2. “When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its
assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, 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.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)
C. CUSTODY ORDERS
Father challenges the juvenile court’s custody orders with a single, conclusory
sentence, alleging that “because there is no substantial evidence to support any of the
section 300(b) counts, and thus no longer any safety concerns in [Father’s] home, there
was no need to alter the time share arrangement between [Father] and [Mother] prior to
the initiation of this case.” Father provides no authority in support of this statement.
“ ‘[A]n appealed judgment is presumed correct, and appellant bears the burden of
overcoming the presumption of correctness.’ [Citation.].... When an appellant raises an
issue ‘but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat
the point as waived.’ ” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1207.) Father
has waived any challenge to the juvenile court’s custody orders.
18
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, subdivision (b), allegation b-3 is reversed. In all other respects, the
judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
19