Filed 8/27/26 In re K.H. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re K.H. et al., Persons Coming B349727
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, 25CCJP01373A-D)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Mark A. Davis, Judge. Affirmed.
Kree D. Filer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Respondent T.G.
______________________________
Appellant J.H. (mother) has four children born between
2019 and 2024. B.B. is the father of the two youngest children.
Following an incident of domestic violence, mother obtained a
criminal protective order that enjoins B.B. from abusing her.
Mother did not enforce the protective order; she gave B.B.
unlimited access to their two children in violation of the juvenile
court’s orders; and she failed to protect the children from other
incidents of domestic violence. The Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) commenced
dependency proceedings on behalf of mother’s four children.
During the proceedings, mother did not cooperate with DCFS and
acted erratically and aggressively. She refused to answer
questions, provided contradictory and false information, and
would not participate in necessary meetings. As a result, DCFS
and the children’s counsel had difficulty assessing the children’s
well-being. After several hearings, the juvenile court removed
the children from mother’s physical custody and placed them
with the fathers and a paternal grandmother.
Mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional orders.
We affirm.
2
BACKGROUND
I. The Family
Mother has four children—K.H. (born Aug. 2019), K.G.
(born Nov. 2020), K.B. (born July 2023), and Ka.B. (born
Oct. 2024).1 Mother identified J.D. as K.H.’s father. Respondent
T.G. is the presumed father of K.G. B.B. is the presumed father
of K.B. and Ka.B.
II. Reports of Domestic Violence
A. 2020 to 2022 Referrals
From 2020 through 2022, there were multiple referrals to
DCFS alleging domestic violence between mother and various
partners. These referrals were determined to be either
“unfounded” or “inconclusive.” In 2022, DCFS suspected mother
was being untruthful when she denied allegations of domestic
violence between her and a boyfriend. However, the children
were too young to provide a statement and the referral was closed
as inconclusive. DCFS advised mother “about the consequences
of exposing the children [to] domestic violence.”
B. 2023 Substantiated Finding of General Neglect
On July 3, 2023, shortly after K.B.’s birth, both mother and K.B.
tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Mother said she
smoked THC during her pregnancy because she could not keep
her food down. This resulted in a “substantiated” finding of
general neglect of K.B.
C. February 2024 Report to DCFS
In early February 2024, mother reported to DCFS that she
and B.B. engaged in an argument; B.B. struck her with a glass
liquor bottle, causing redness on her left arm; and K.B., then an
1 We refer to K.H., K.G., K.B., and Ka.B., collectively, as
minors.
3
infant, was on the bed at the time of the altercation. According to
the DCFS report, “[t]he father was arrested and the mother was
granted an emergency protective order.” The referral was closed
as “inconclusive.”
D. March 2024 Criminal Protective Order
On March 18, 2024, a court issued a criminal protective
order (protective order). In relevant part, the protective order
states: “[B.B.] must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually
or otherwise), hit, follow, stalk, molest, . . . disturb the peace of,
keep under surveillance, . . . or block movements of [mother].”
However, the protective order does not preclude mother and B.B.
from having contact. The protective order is active from March
18, 2024, through March 17, 2027.
At the time, B.B. had a criminal record and was on
probation. The criminal court extended B.B.’s probation and
ordered B.B. to participate in a 52-week domestic violence
program.
E. January 2025 Report to Pomona Police Department
On January 28, 2025, mother called the Pomona Police
Department to report an altercation with B.B. at a motel. The
police report states that mother and B.B. were arguing about who
should be responsible for watching their two children when B.B.
allegedly grabbed mother’s ankles and forcefully pulled her off
the bed. B.B. then allegedly dragged mother out of the room.
The two children were asleep during the physical altercation
between the parents. Mother told the police that B.B. “has
physically assaulted her on three separate occasions in the past.”
F. April 2025 Report to the Sheriff’s Department
On April 10, 2025, deputies of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department (LASD) responded to a medical emergency
4
call for service. Mother told the deputies that she and B.B.
rented a room for the night with their two children in common,
K.B. and Ka.B. In the morning, mother and B.B. began to argue
over “infidelity” and B.B. allegedly “retrieved a yellow studded
belt with rhinestones and proceeded to strike [mother] numerous
times throughout her body.” The deputies took photographs of
mother’s injuries and booked the belt into evidence. The deputies
asked mother if she desired an emergency protective order; she
responded that “she would seek one [at] a more convenient time
to her.” Mother said it “was not her first time going through the
restraining order process and [she] was familiar with the
proceedings.”
III. Investigation by DCFS
On April 14, 2025, DCFS received a referral concerning the
allegation of domestic violence on April 10 between mother and
B.B., described above.
On April 16, 2025, a DCFS children’s social worker (CSW)
interviewed B.B. B.B. reported he lived with his mother, the
paternal grandmother of K.B. and Ka.B. He denied there had
been any domestic violence incidents with mother. B.B. stated
that “he and mother got into a verbal argument, but it did not get
physical.” According to B.B., mother was trying to cause a scene
at the hotel and he left on foot with the children and took a bus
home. B.B. said he had a criminal record “due to mother calling
the police on him before at a separate hotel.” B.B. said that
“when mother has the kids, she doesn’t want them, but when
father has them, she wants them” and “that it is an ongoing
pattern.” B.B. had the children, K.B. and Ka.B., in his care at
the time of the interview. The CSW “did not observe any marks
5
or bruises on the children and they appeared to be meeting
developmental milestones.”
On April 23, 2025, the CSW interviewed mother about the
referral. Mother said that B.B. hit her with a belt after they had
an argument about infidelity. Mother said B.B. “snatched the
kids up and left” before law enforcement responded to the hotel.
Mother said this was the first incident wherein B.B. had hit her.
On April 28, 2025, the CSW sent a text message to mother
and B.B. stating that the reported incident from April 10, 2025,
violated the protective order. On May 1, 2025, the CSW spoke to
mother about the protective order. Mother said she was not
aware of the protective order. She denied there was any domestic
violence between her and B.B. in January 2025.
Also on April 28, 2025, the CSW saw mother in person at a
motel. Mother had K.G. and Ka.B. in her care. The CSW
observed that Ka.B. appeared appropriately dressed for the
weather; did not appear to have any marks or bruises; and
appeared to be meeting developmental milestones.
IV. Juvenile Court Proceedings
A. The Removal Order and Dependency Petition
On May 5, 2025, the juvenile court issued an order
removing K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B. As a result, the children
were released to mother.
On May 9, 2025, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300,
subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b)(1) (failure to
protect) on behalf of minors based on mother’s and B.B.’s history
of domestic violence. The petition alleged that mother and B.B.
2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
6
“have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the presence
of” minors, that “mother failed to enforce the criminal protective
order,” and that she “failed to protect . . . [minors] by allowing
[B.B.] to have unlimited access to” them.
B. The Last Minute Information
On May 22, 2025, DCFS filed a Last Minute Information
for the Court (LMI), which recommended that “all minors be
removed from the care of the mother to ensure their safety and
well-being.”
Among other things, the LMI stated that mother told the
CSW “multiple times that the department need[ed] to come
watch these kids” and “that she [wa]s going to allow [B.B.] to
come and get the children.” Accordingly, the CSW reported that
she “ha[d] reason to believe that mother ha[d] possibly been
violating the removal order by allowing father to visit the
minors.” The CSW “informed mother that the children [could
not] go with [B.B.], and if mother allow[ed] them to go with
[B.B.], then all four of the children could potentially be detained.”
Mother “appeared to be overwhelmed with caring for all four
minors” and “was not receptive to any possible solutions outside
of returning the minors to the father. She stated she needed
them to go back with him so she could take care of her
business. . . . She stated that someone from the department
need[ed] to watch the kids.” Mother did “not appear to be able to
be protective, as she . . . made multiple statements about
returning the minors to their father. In addition, mother did not
follow through on the [r]estraining [o]rder hearing, claiming that
she [wa]s back with the father.”
The LMI details mother’s lack of cooperation with DCFS.
Mother refused to participate in a Child and Family Team (CFT)
7
meeting, saying “[s]he knows all about CFTs and does not want
to talk about her wants, needs, and goals.” Mother would not
directly answer questions from the CSW and was not forthcoming
with information. Mother also provided contradictory
information and was “argumentative and defensive throughout
the conversation.” As a result of mother not being forthright, the
CSW had difficulty locating and checking on K.B. and Ka.B. Nor
could the CSW verify that mother was obeying the juvenile
court’s removal order. Moreover, the CSWs had to terminate one
visit because of “mother’s escalating behavior.”
C. The Initial Hearing
At the May 23, 2025, initial hearing, the juvenile court
found a prima facie case that minors were described by section
300, found B.B. to be K.B.’s and Ka.B.’s presumed father, and
detained K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B.
The juvenile court informed mother’s counsel that it had
read the LMI, found it “in many ways concerning,” and asked
mother’s counsel why minors should be released to mother.
Mother’s counsel stated that she discussed the LMI with mother,
that mother acknowledged “feeling frustrated,” and that mother
did not want minors removed and wanted to care for them.
Mother’s counsel argued that DCFS could establish a safety plan
that would require mother to keep DCFS informed of her
location, cooperate with unannounced visits, and make minors
available to the CSWs and minors’ counsel.
Over DCFS’s objection, the juvenile court ordered the
minors to remain released to mother’s care with a safety plan.
The court admonished mother that any violation of the court’s
orders could result in minors being detained from her custody.
8
The court also issued a mutual stay away order for mother and
B.B. The court set an adjudication hearing for July 2, 2025.
D. The Progress Hearing
At a progress hearing on June 12, 2025, the juvenile court
found that J.D. is not K.H.’s father after J.D. and his attorney
submitted a negative paternity test. The juvenile court ordered
K.H. to be released to mother.
E. Arraignment of T.G.
On June 20, 2025, the juvenile court arraigned T.G. and
found T.G. to be the presumed father of K.G. T.G. was a
nonoffending parent and submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. Because the child was staying with T.G.’s mother, and
because T.G. was nonoffending, the court made a Home of
Parents order whereby K.G. was released to the custody of both
mother and T.G.
F. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
According to DCFS’s jurisdiction/disposition report
submitted to the juvenile court in late June 2025, mother
reported that she was homeless and usually stayed in motels or
with a nonrelated extended family member. Mother reported
that K.G. was primarily cared for by her paternal step-
grandmother. Mother also reported that K.B. and Ka.B. were in
the care of B.B.’s mother, their paternal grandmother.
On June 18, 2025, a dependency investigator interviewed
mother and K.H. regarding the petition allegations. When asked
about domestic violence, K.H. said mother and B.B. “sometimes
fight at the hotel . . . . They yell and hit.” K.H. said she and her
siblings were at times present at the hotel during the fights and
other times they were at a family friend’s home. Asked how she
9
felt when she saw mother and B.B. fighting, K.H. responded, “It
makes me cry.”
Mother said she disagreed with the petition allegations but
declined to provide any additional statements and told the
dependency investigator, “I don’t care about this.” Mother denied
any domestic violence occurring between herself and B.B. and
said that she did not need a stay away order.
Two days later, mother called the dependency investigator
upset about the juvenile court allowing the children’s fathers to
have unmonitored contact with them despite the fathers being
“violent men.” The dependency investigator explained to mother
that it was important for her to provide a statement regarding
the petition. Mother stated that she was fearful because she had
“not been protected in the past.” Mother discussed her history as
a foster youth, the struggles of providing for her four children,
and being homeless.
Mother stated, “We had 9 referrals before, but none ever
got this far where we’ve had to go to court. I was living my best
life, but I wasn’t stressed like this, but I’m so drained. Yes, the
[petition] is true. We got into a situation and I defended myself
and I got a restraining order and left, but I had to go back. What
can I do if I live there? We lived with [B.B.]’s mom.”
When asked why mother was now willing to talk about the
petition, mother responded, “I grew up by myself, so all I have is
my kids. I don’t do anything to my kids or around my kids. My
kids aren’t around it. They were not involved . . . . The kids have
never seen him be aggressive. I just didn’t want to say something
and then you guys take my kids. I need my kids with me. I’m
not trying to do anything to anyone. I want to get away from
them. I’m scared they’re going to retaliate.”
10
On June 26, 2025, mother contacted the CSW and stated:
“My kids are not safe with . . . [B.B.] I don’t want my kids with
him at all. I don’t have any family at all, I grew up in the system.
I take care of my own kids. That’s why I stayed with [B.B.] so
long, I didn’t want to leave the kids with him. He’s a pimp. He’s
a sex trafficker. I don’t want my kids to be with him.”
The dependency investigator interviewed B.B. at his
residence on June 20, 2025. B.B. denied the petition allegations
and said he never “put hands on” mother. B.B. denied any
domestic violence between himself and mother and denied
violating the protective order. B.B. also denied that mother had
failed to protect minors from domestic violence.
DCFS assessed that the allegations of domestic violence
between mother and B.B. were true. DCFS recommended the
juvenile court sustain the section 300 petition, remove minors
from mother’s physical custody, and offer family maintenance
services.
Other than the domestic violence, no concerns were
reported regarding mother’s or B.B.’s interactions with the
children.
G. The Supplemental Report
On August 11, 2025, DCFS filed a supplemental report
summarizing recent communications with mother, T.G., and B.B.
DCFS reported the following information:
On July 29, 2025, in an interview with the dependency
investigator, mother requested a different CSW since she “cannot
communicate” with the current CSW. Mother reported that B.B.
had come looking for her at a nonrelated extended family
member’s residence and at various motels, and that he “yelled at
her through the window.” Mother further reported that she and
11
a nonrelated extended family member had gotten into three
physical altercations with paternal grandmother during custody
exchanges in the presence of the children. Mother also disclosed
she was four months pregnant. Mother said that she let B.B.
keep Ka.B. because she could not carry Ka.B. or take her on the
bus while she was pregnant.
The CSW informed the dependency investigator that
mother continued to demonstrate instability. Mother called the
CSW 16 times in a row to demand K.G. be brought to her.
Mother stated she and the children would be “flying out” to
attend a funeral but did not provide any additional information.
Mother would “often be disrespectful and scream and curse
throughout their calls.”
On July 31, 2025, T.G. called the dependency investigator
to express concerns regarding K.G.’s safety in mother’s custody.
He had made plans to drop off K.G. with mother for the weekend
so K.G. could celebrate K.H.’s birthday. Shortly thereafter,
mother called him, was upset and aggressive, cussed at him, and
called him a pedophile. According to T.G., mother threatened to
tell the other children to “beat up” K.G. and she threatened to
keep K.G. away from him. T.G. stated that because of this
conversation, he did not feel comfortable dropping K.G. off and
that he would await further court orders before proceeding with
any more exchanges. T.G. also provided the dependency
investigator with screenshots of mother’s Facebook posts wherein
mother alleged that T.G. was a “pedophile.”
Also on July 31, 2025, the dependency investigator spoke
with B.B., who said that mother was behaving erratically and
unreasonably. B.B. stated that mother would call him repeatedly
to demand the children, but when paternal grandmother drops
12
off the children, mother will call for the children to be picked up
again. B.B. stated that the children are primarily in the care of
himself and paternal grandmother and that mother does not use
her full custodial time. B.B. denied mother’s reports that he had
followed her or gone to where she was staying. B.B. also denied
there had been any physical altercations between mother and
paternal grandmother. B.B. completed the 52-week domestic
violence program as ordered by the criminal court.
Finally, DCFS reported that mother “ha[d] been refusing to
meet with [the] CSW.” DCFS reported that the CSWs needed to
meet regularly with all family members in order to provide
supportive services.
DCFS assessed the case as follows: “Since the last court
date, the Department has continued to attempt to team with
mother . . . in order to provide supportive services; however,
[mother] has continued to behave erratically and aggressively
with [the] CSW . . . and the fathers of her children.” DCFS
reported that “[mother’s] threats to withhold the children from
their respective fathers detrimentally impact the children’s well[-
]being emotionally as the children have a strong bond with their
fathers from the Department’s observations.” DCFS also
reported that “[mother] withholding the children from their
fathers also detrimentally impact them physically and
developmentally as the fathers are the primary figures who are
prioritizing the children’s medical and dental examinations which
mother has refused to do.”
H. The Second Last Minute Information
In a Last Minute Information for the Court filed August 12,
2025 (Second LMI), DCFS reported that it was concerned about
minors’ “physical and emotional well[-]being” as mother
13
continues to demonstrate erratic behaviors, has threatened to
withhold K.G. from T.G., has withheld K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B.,
and has refused to provide the location of the children to the
social worker. Further, mother “refused efforts to ensure that the
children receive medical, dental, developmental, and mental
health assessments and services.”
I. The Recommendations
DCFS recommended that minors be removed from mother’s
physical custody. Minors’ counsel joined in DCFS’s request to
detain minors from mother. She stated: “I also have increasing
concerns for my clients given what’s reported. . . . I am
sympathetic to mother’s history but [DCFS] and my office need to
be able to assess the safety of these minors.”
J. The Dispositional Hearing
On August 13, 2025, after hearing argument from counsel,
the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition as to
allegations pled under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court
dismissed the allegations pled under section 300, subdivision (a).
The juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence,
that it was “reasonable and necessary to remove [K.G., K.B., and
Ka.B.] . . . from . . . mother . . . because there [wa]s a substantial
danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or
emotional well-being, and special needs, if applicable, of the
child[ren], and there [we]re no reasonable means by which the
child[ren]’s physical health [could] be protected, without
removing the child[ren] from the home and the care, custody, and
control of” mother. With respect to K.H., for whom paternity was
not established, the court made this finding as to the “parents.”
The juvenile court found that “mother has been completely
uncooperative with the social workers” and “there’s been a
14
complete inability of mother to allow the department to do their
work.” The court stated, “[t]hat’s troubling for me because I have
to make sure that the kids are safe and that everybody is
allowing folks to get checked out, allowing them to do their
investigations.”
As to disposition, the juvenile court ordered K.G.’s case to
close, granting T.G. sole physical custody. The court ordered that
T.G. and mother would have joint legal custody, and that mother
would have unmonitored weekend visits.
The court ordered K.B. and Ka.B. removed from mother’s
physical custody and released them to their father, B.B. Over
DCFS’s objections, the court granted mother unmonitored visits
with DCFS having the ability to make unannounced appearances
during her visits.
Finally, the court ordered K.H. removed from mother’s
physical custody. The court released K.H. to T.G.’s stepmother,
who also cared for K.G. and who had been assessed by DCFS as a
suitable placement for K.H. The court granted mother
unmonitored visits with K.H.
DISCUSSION
I. The Removal Order
Mother challenges the juvenile court’s removal order as to
all four children. She contends that “there was not clear and
convincing evidence that the children were at risk of substantial
or serious harm, if left in the care of the mother with the stay
away order and a family maintenance plan.”
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
A juvenile court may remove a child from a parent’s
physical custody if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
15
(1) “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical
health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of
the minor if the minor were returned home”; and (2) “there are no
reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be
protected without removing the minor from the minor’s
parent’s . . . physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c).)
“We review a dispositional order removing a child from a
parent for substantial evidence.” (In re M.V. (2022)
78 Cal.App.5th 944, 960.) “[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of
the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and
convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this
standard demands.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th
989, 995–996.) Under this standard, “the question before the
appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains
substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could
have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Ibid.) “We
view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have
evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the
evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.”
(In re M.V., supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 960.)
B. There is Sufficient Evidence of Substantial Danger to
Minors if Returned Home to Mother’s Custody
1. Domestic Violence
The petition under section 300, subdivision (b), which the
juvenile court sustained, alleged that mother and B.B. “have a
history of engaging in violent altercations in [minors’] presence,”
and that mother failed to protect minors from this serious risk of
harm. This allegation is supported by substantial evidence.
16
“It is clear to this court that domestic violence in the same
household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to
protect.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194.)
“Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is
detrimental to children.” (In re Benjamin D. (1991)
227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5.) “[E]ven if they are not
physically harmed, children suffer enormously from simply
witnessing the violence between their parents.” (In re Sylvia R.
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 559, 562.)
Here, there were many referrals to DCFS regarding
domestic violence between mother and various partners. In 2022,
DCFS advised mother “about the consequences of exposing the
children [to] domestic violence.” On March 18, 2024, a court
issued a criminal protective order enjoining B.B. not to harass,
strike, threaten, assault, hit, follow, stalk, or molest mother.
Despite the warning from DCFS, mother failed to enforce
the protective order or take other measures to protect minors
from domestic violence. Mother gave B.B. unlimited access to
minors in violation of the juvenile court’s orders, and she allowed
K.B. and Ka.B. to be exposed to physical altercations between her
and B.B. K.H. also said she and her siblings were at times
present during the fights between B.B. and mother. Although
the LASD deputies asked mother if she desired a protective
order, mother said she would seek one at “a more convenient
time” and she did not inform the officers of the existing protective
order. Thus, there is substantial evidence that minors were
exposed to domestic violence while in mother’s care, that mother
failed to take reasonable steps to protect them, and that it was
likely to continue if they remained in mother’s custody.
2. Mother’s Behavior
17
Mother’s obstreperous behavior supports the juvenile
court’s removal order. DCFS attempted to provide supportive
services, but mother refused to meet with the CSWs. Mother was
not forthcoming and provided contradictory or false information
to the CSWs. As a result, the CSWs could not perform their
duties, such as checking on the children. Nor could DCFS verify
that mother was complying with the juvenile court’s order
removing K.B. and Ka.B. from their father. In fact, DCFS had
“reason to believe that mother ha[d] possibly been violating the
removal order by allowing [B.B.] to visit the minors.”
Mother’s “erratic” behavior impacted her children directly.
Mother threatened to withhold the children from their respective
fathers, which “detrimentally impact[ed]” their emotional well-
being. Mother’s threats also “detrimentally impact[ed]” the
children’s physical well-being, because their fathers were
prioritizing their medical and dental examinations, which mother
refused to do.
Similarly, minors’ counsel expressed concern for her clients
based upon mother’s behavior. She also expressed concern that
neither she nor DCFS was able to assess the minors’ well-being.
Mother argues that “a parent’s failure to cooperate with a
social worker[] is not a basis to detain children from their
parents.” We agree that, standing alone, “[t]he ability of a parent
to get along with a social worker is not evidence from which a
removal order can be supported.” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64
Cal.App.5th 11, 25.) In this case, however, mother’s conduct
went far beyond not “getting along” with the CSWs. Mother
refused to meet with the CSWs and provided contradictory or
false information. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court’s
assessment that mother was so uncooperative that DCFS could
18
not verify minors’ safety. The juvenile court must consider “not
only the parent’s past conduct, but also current circumstances,
and the parent’s response to the conditions that gave rise to
juvenile court intervention.” (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510,
520, italics added.)
Mother argues that DCFS “never observed any concerning
behaviors, appearances, or other physical observations of the
children while they were in the appellant’s care.” To the
contrary, mother’s failure to protect minors from domestic
violence and her behavior exposed minors to a substantial risk of
harm. Regardless, “ ‘ “[t]he parent need not be dangerous and
the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is
appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the
child.” ’ ” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169–170.)
Finally, mother contends this case “is an unfortunate
continuance of the recent and troubling trend, of . . . mothers
being punished as victims of domestic violence” in juvenile court
proceedings. (See In re Ma.V., supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at pp. 25–
26.) In this case, we are satisfied that the juvenile court removed
minors based upon mother’s conduct, specifically, her failure to
take reasonable steps to protect minors and her own “erratic” and
obstreperous behavior which prevented DCFS and minors’
counsel from verifying the safety of the children.
C. There is Sufficient Evidence of No Lesser Alternative
Than Removal of Minors from Mother’s Custody
Mother has not shown that there was a reasonable
alternative to removal of minors from her care. There is
abundant evidence that mother failed to take reasonable steps to
protect minors from being exposed to domestic violence. Further,
there is abundant evidence that mother’s own “erratic” and
19
obstreperous behavior prevented DCFS and minors’ counsel from
doing their work and was harmful to minors. Under these
circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably find, by clear
and convincing evidence, that there were no reasonable means by
which minors could be protected without removing them from
mother’s physical custody.
II. Sufficient Findings of Fact and Harmless Error
Mother argues that the juvenile court failed to cite specific
facts prior to removing K.G. from her care and that this was not
harmless error. In a removal proceeding, the juvenile court is
required to determine “whether reasonable efforts were made to
prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from
their home” and “shall state the facts on which the decision to
remove the minor is based.” (§ 361, subd. (e).) Incorporating the
statutory language without stating the facts that support
removal does not comply with this mandate. (See In re D.P.
(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1067.) However, the failure to make
findings “ ‘will be deemed harmless where “it is not reasonably
probable such finding[s], if made, would have been in favor of
continued parental custody.” ’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th
227, 247.)
We find no error. The trial court found that “mother ha[d]
been completely uncooperative with the social workers” and there
had “been a complete inability of mother to allow the department
to do their work.” The court stated, “[t]hat’s troubling for me
because I have to make sure that the kids are safe . . . .” The
court acknowledged that mother was the victim of domestic
violence but found that “I have to consider one’s willingness to
allow the department to do their work in making sure that the
children are safe and well-cared for, and from the information
20
that the court has before it, I can’t be sure of that.” These
findings apply to K.G.
Based on our review of the entire record, and as discussed
above, we conclude it is not reasonably probable that the juvenile
court would have found that minors could safely be returned to
mother’s physical custody.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s dispositional orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
GOORVITCH, J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
RICHARDSON, J.
21