In re S.S. CA2/5

Filed 9/16/26 In re S.S. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re S.S., a Person Coming Under B347354
the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No.
AND FAMILY SERVICES, 25CCJP00090D)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court Los Angeles
County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
________________________________
A.S. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order declaring
his daughter a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j).1 Father contends that the
court’s jurisdictional findings and its order removing minor from
his custody were not supported by substantial evidence.
Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) contends there was sufficient
evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional findings and its
removal order. We agree with the Department, and therefore we
affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. Background and Dependency Case Involving Half-
Siblings

Mother and father have one child in common, minor, who
was born March 6, 2025. During interviews one week after
minor’s birth, mother and father reported being in a relationship
for less than one year.
Before her relationship with father, mother was in a
relationship with E.A. Mother and E.A. had three children,

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.

2 Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts
in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings,
resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences to
uphold the court’s order, if possible. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th
622, 633.)

2
minor’s half-siblings, all under the age of six when minor was
born: S.A. (born June 2019), N.A. (born September 2020), and
R.A. (born 2022). During mother’s pregnancy with minor, the
Department investigated reports of abuse and neglect of the
three half-siblings, and filed a petition alleging all three were at
risk of harm.
In a November 2024 interview while mother was pregnant
with minor, mother’s eldest child, S.A., reported that mother and
mother’s then boyfriend, father A.S., argued a lot and that A.S.
broke mother’s television; S.A. also reported that A.S. was mad
because mother hid his phone. When mother was later
questioned about the television and phone incidents, mother
denied that she and A.S. were fighting, saying that they were just
playing around, and when the television fell, it cracked and she
screamed and ran because it had unhooked.
A February 20, 2025, last minute information report in the
half-siblings’ case includes a police report documenting a police
inquiry into a domestic violence incident between mother and the
half-siblings’ father. According to the report, both mother and
the half-siblings’ father denied any domestic violence and stated
that they had a verbal argument about the father wanting to
leave mother and the children to hang out with his friends.
Mother reported shouting at the half-siblings’ father when he
tried to take her car, and he reported that the police were called
because they were being loud. Mother’s cousin reported that the
parents argue all the time, and she believed mother has been hit
in the past, but that mother is afraid to report the abuse and lies
about being hit.
On April 2, 2025, less than one month after minor was
born, the petition concerning the half-siblings was sustained

3
based on a plea by mother and E.A., and the three half-siblings
were ordered removed from parental custody. The sustained
petition counts alleged that mother physically abused daughter
S.A. (counts a-1, b-2, and j-2); mother and E.A. had a history of
verbal and physical altercations and a violent confrontation
(count b-5); and mother and A.S. (minor’s father) had a history of
domestic violence, including a violent confrontation involving a
television and a cell phone (count b-4). The sustained b-4 count
concerning father alleged that mother and father “have a history
of engaging in verbal and physical altercations in the presence of
the children. On prior occasions, the children were exposed to a
violent confrontation between [mother and father] in which
[mother and father] broke a television and cell phone. Such
violent conduct by [mother and father], endangers the children’s
physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home
environment, and places the children, at risk of serious physical
harm, damage, and dangers.”

B. Current Petition and Hearing

On March 13 and again on March 21, 2025, a Department
social worker interviewed parents in connection with a new
referral concerning minor shortly after minor’s birth. Mother
reported she met father in June 2024, and got pregnant after one
month. She had been living with a cousin in Azusa, but due to a
disagreement, the cousin packed up her belongings and put them
in storage; mother had been living in motels from November 2024
through January 2025. Both mother and father denied any
domestic violence between them. The social worker asked father
about statements by S.A., minor’s almost six-year-old half-

4
sibling, (i.e., that father had pinched S.A. and that mother hit
S.A.). Father denied the accusation and said S.A. likes getting
treated like a princess and when she is not getting treated how
she wants to be treated, she embellishes things. Father said S.A.
has no concept of time and likes to play the victim when she does
something wrong and acts like she didn’t do anything.
On April 30, 2025, the Department filed a petition alleging
minor was a dependent under section 300, subdivisions (b) and
(j), based on allegations parallel to those counts sustained as to
minor’s half-siblings. Based on the sustained allegations in the
half-siblings’ case, parents’ denial of domestic violence, and
minor’s inability to protect herself due to her young age, the
Department recommended detaining minor from parental
custody. On May 1, 2025, the dependency court ordered minor
detained from mother and father. Minor was placed with
paternal grandparents.
The Department filed its jurisdiction and disposition report
in May 2024. In an interview on May 15, 2025, mother claimed
her other three children were removed on false allegations by
S.A., that there was no proof mother had abused S.A., and
mother had not done anything wrong. Mother reported that she
had lived with a relative in Azusa for about six years, until she
moved out last year. According to mother, father was helping her
and her children, because mother had been unable to get housing.
Mother reported that father had provided for her children like
nobody else had and mother felt safe, loved, and supported by
father and his family. Mother admitted to struggling with
housing and employment, but with father’s help her children
were fed and housed. She reported that minor’s removal had
strained her relationship with father, who had decided to end the

5
relationship until the issue was resolved, because he did not want
to put his daughter at risk of being placed in foster care with an
unknown family. However, mother hoped to maintain a
relationship with father.
In light of the sustained petition allegation—in the half-
siblings’ case—of domestic violence between mother and father
involving a television and a cell phone, the social worker asked
mother about the incident, and mother explained that she had
mounted a television incorrectly, and it had fallen. Mother
claimed she bought a new one, and father helped her mount it
correctly. Regarding the cell phone incident, mother reported she
had grabbed her phone away from father when father was
laughing at a photo on her phone. Mother denied any physical
abuse, substance abuse, or domestic violence. Mother claimed
S.A. could have a difficult personality and becomes angry when
she is not the center of attention.
The social worker’s May 15, 2024 interview with father
revealed similar information. According to father, he and mother
had lived off a $100,000 settlement, until that money ran out.
They lived in a hotel because neither he nor mother have an
employment history and so no one was willing to rent to them.
Father denied any domestic violence with mother, giving an
explanation similar to mother’s statement regarding the
television and cell phone incidents. He also said he had observed
S.A.’s difficult personality and how she gets jealous and angry if
she is not the center of attention. Asked about mother’s domestic
violence history with the half-siblings’ father, father said there
was an incident in 2019, but only S.A. was alive at the time. Her
younger siblings and minor had not even been born, and father
did not know mother at the time. After minor was born, he,

6
mother, and minor moved in with paternal grandparents. Father
reported that he and mother are currently homeless as they do
not have anywhere to live and cannot live with paternal
grandparents because minor is with them. Minor is father’s first
child, the grandparents are bonded to her and willing to help him
and mother in anything to avoid any further trauma to the
children. In the same interview, father reported he and mother
had a loving, supportive, happy relationship for about a year, but
he had recently ended the relationship to focus on his daughter.
Mother tested mostly negative for drugs, but was a no show
for four tests between March and May 2025. On May 16, 2025,
mother tested positive for methamphetamine, resulting in the
Department filing a first amended petition, adding a count based
on mother’s substance abuse.
At a hearing on June 4, 2025, the court ordered the
Department to make its reports from the half-siblings’
dependency case available to father’s counsel, who also requested
S.A.’s presence for testimony. The court and the attorneys agreed
that the domestic violence count involving father was based on
evidence contained in the half-sibling’s case, including interviews
with S.A. and with father, and that credibility was an important
factor.
In a last-minute report dated June 24, 2025, the
Department reported difficulties communicating with father,
because on June 6, 2025, he said he wanted all communication to
be via text message as he did not feel comfortable with the
process. Father did not understand how mother tested positive
for drugs after initially testing negative. Father reported he was
not in agreement with drug testing; he declined to drug test and
claimed social workers received bonuses for removing children.

7
Father worked occasionally at paternal grandfather’s automotive
shop, but he was unhoused. Father had been in a car accident
and no longer had a vehicle, so he wanted the Department to
provide him with a bus pass. In addition, father claimed the
Department had failed to provide him with housing assistance.
Father did not have a set visitation schedule, but he visited with
minor two or three times a week.
By June 16, 2025, father had agreed to drug test, and the
results were negative. The social worker provided father with
housing and referrals for services, and by June 23, 2025, father
provided proof of enrollment in a parenting program and
individual therapy.
At the June 30, 2025 adjudication hearing, the juvenile
court admitted into evidence the Department’s reports for minor
and the earlier reports concerning minor’s half-siblings, and took
judicial notice of the case plans and sustained findings from the
half-siblings’ case. Father’s counsel asked the court to dismiss
the domestic violence count against father, arguing that mother
and father had consistently denied any domestic violence
between them, the court lacked necessary context for S.A.’s
account to be credible, such as where the TV was hung and what
S.A.’s line of sight was, and even if the court found S.A.’s account
to be credible, a one-time incident was insufficient to support an
exercise of dependency jurisdiction. Counsel also argued that
because mother and father were no longer living together, there
was no current risk of harm to minor. The Department argued in
favor of sustaining the domestic violence count and the substance
abuse/failure to protect count against both parents, noting that
while both parents in separate interviews denied that the
television had broken as a result of domestic violence, they were

8
both quick to claim that S.A. told lies to gain attention, and
would tell them to stop fighting when they were only verbally
arguing.
The juvenile court explained its decision to sustain the
counts involving the risk posed to minor by mother’s physical
abuse of S.A. (count b-1) and by domestic violence (count b-2),
pointing out that mother’s previous relationship had involved
serious domestic violence, and the court continued to find S.A.’s
statements to be credible, just as it did in the case involving the
half-siblings. S.A.’s young age made it understandable that she
would not be able to provide dates or details, and the court found
the parents’ statements about mother’s reasons for avoiding
questioning by the Department and accusing S.A. of lying to be
signs that the parents’ respective denials of domestic violence
between them lacked credibility. Concerning mother’s history of
substance abuse and her recent positive test for
methamphetamine, the court reasoned that father was in denial
about mother’s drug problem, which posed a risk to minor.
The court dismissed allegations pertaining to E.A., the half-
siblings’ father, but sustained amended allegations concerning
mother’s physical abuse of minor’s half-sibling S.A.,3 mother and

3 Counts b-1 and j-1, as amended by the court, state
“[Mother] has a history of physically abusing the child’s maternal
half sibling. S.A. On prior occasions, the mother repeatedly
struck the maternal half sibling’s back, arms and legs with a belt,
inflicting marks on the maternal half sibling’s legs. On prior
occasions, the mother struck the maternal half sibling’s arms.
Such physical abuse was excessive and caused the maternal half
sibling unreasonable pain and suffering. The child’s maternal
half siblings. . . are current dependents of the Juvenile Court due

9
father’s history of engaging in violent altercations in the half-
siblings’ presence4 and mother’s substance abuse and father’s
failure to protect minor from mother’s substance abuse.5 Father
appealed.

to the physical abuse of the maternal half sibling [S.A.] by the
mother. The physical abuse of the maternal half sibling [S.A.] by
the mother endangers [minor’s] physical health and safety,
creates a detrimental home environment and places the child at
risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, physical
abuse.” (Emphasis omitted.)

4 Counts b-2 and j-2, as amended by the court, state
“[Mother] and father . . . have a history of engaging in verbal and
physical altercations in the presence of the child’s maternal half
siblings . . . . On prior occasions, the maternal half siblings were
exposed to a violent confrontation between the mother and . . .
father in which the mother and . . . father broke a television and
cell phone. Further, the mother, . . . and the mother’s former
male companion, . . . father of the child’s maternal half
siblings . . . , have a history of engaging in violent verbal and
physical altercations in the presence of the maternal half
siblings. On prior occasions, the maternal halfsiblings were
exposed to a violent confrontation between the mother and the
[maternal half-siblings’] father. The child’s maternal halfsiblings
are current dependents of the Juvenile Court due to the violent
altercations between the mother and . . . father. Such violent
conduct by the mother and the father of [minor] endangers
[minor’s] physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home
environment, and places the child at risk of serious physical
harm, damage, and danger.” (Emphasis omitted.)

5 Count b-4 states:“[Mother] has a history of substance
abuse and is a current abuser of methamphetamines which

10
DISCUSSION

A. Mootness

Father acknowledges that his appeal is potentially moot
because mother has not challenged the jurisdictional findings
against her, and so even if we agree with his argument, the
juvenile court will still retain jurisdiction over minor.
Nonetheless, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to review
the merits of his appeal.
“A case becomes moot when events ‘ “render[ ] it impossible
for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of [the
appellant], to grant him any effect[ive] relief.” ’ [Citation.]” (In
re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) A reviewing court must
“ ‘ “decide on a case-by-case basis whether subsequent events in a
juvenile dependency matter make a case moot and whether [its]
decision would affect the outcome in a subsequent proceeding.” ’ ”
[Citation.] “[W]hen a parent has demonstrated a specific legal or
practical consequence that will be averted upon reversal, the case

renders the mother incapable of providing regular care for the
child. On 05/16/25, the mother had a positive toxicology screen
for methamphetamines. The child is of such young age requiring
constant care and supervision and the mother’s substance abuse
interferes with providing regular care and supervision of the
child. [Father] knew or reasonably should have known of the
mother’s substance abuse and failed to take action to protect the
child. The mother’s substance abuse endangers the child’s
physical health and safety and creates a detrimental home
environment, placing the child at risk of serious physical harm
and damage.”

11
is not moot, and merits review is required. When a parent has
not made such a showing, the case is moot, but the court has
discretion to decide the merits nevertheless.” (Id. at p. 283; In re
S.R. (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1042, 1052.) A reviewing court has
discretion to reach the merits of a moot issue if the challenged
order “ ‘could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially
impact the current or future dependency proceedings,’ or ‘ “could
have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond
jurisdiction.” ’ ” (In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 285; see also
In re S.R., supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 1054.)
On the record presented here, we opt to exercise our
discretion to reach the merits of father’s arguments concerning
the jurisdictional findings against him.

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Exercise
of Jurisdiction

Father challenges the evidentiary support for all the
jurisdictional findings against him. However, so long as any one
of the adverse jurisdictional findings is supported by sufficient
evidence, we need not consider the others. (In re I.J. (2013) 56
Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.) [“ ‘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 such a case, the
reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other
alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the
evidence.’ [Citation]”].) We focus our discussion on the finding

12
under section 300, subdivision (j), that minor was at risk of harm
based on past domestic violence between mother and father that
placed minor’s siblings at risk.
The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child if the
Department establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
allegations made pursuant to section 300 are true. (§ 355; In re
Jonathan B. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 115, 118–119.) Section 300,
subdivision (j) authorizes jurisdiction when “the child’s sibling
has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b),
(d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be
abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions.” In
evaluating an allegation under subdivision (j), the statutory text
directs the court to “consider the circumstances surrounding the
abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child,
the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental
condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the
court considers probative in determining whether there is a
substantial risk to the child.” Section 300, subdivision (b)(1),
authorizes jurisdiction when “ ‘[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 the failure or inability of his or her
parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . .’ ”
(Italics added.)
The purpose of juvenile law “is to provide maximum safety
and protection for children who are currently being physically,
sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being
exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and
emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm.”
(§ 300.2, subd. (a); see also In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217,

13
1228 [the “goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the
welfare of California’s children”].)
“ ‘In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jurisdictional findings and disposition, we
determine if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,
supports them.’ ” (I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773.) The
appealing party “bear[s] the burden to show there was no
evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support those
findings and orders. [Citation.] We draw all reasonable
inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of
the juvenile court and review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations; we do not reweigh the
evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely
determine if there are sufficient facts to support the trial court’s
findings. [Citation.] Thus, we do not consider whether there is
evidence from which the juvenile court could have drawn a
different conclusion but whether there is substantial evidence to
support the conclusion that the court did draw. [Citation.].” (In
re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.) We defer to the lower
court on issues of credibility. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th
728, 733–734.) “Substantial evidence must be of ponderable legal
significance. It is not synonymous with ‘any’ evidence.
[Citation.] The evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible,
and of solid value.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212,
228 (Dakota H).) “ ‘ “The ultimate test is whether it is
reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in
light of the whole record.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Yolanda
L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 992.)
We are unconvinced by father’s argument that the juvenile
court’s findings were based on insufficient evidence and

14
speculation. Father’s argument ignores the basic tenets of
appellate review that we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the judgment and defer to the lower court on
questions of credibility.
Focusing on the risk posed by past domestic violence
between mother and father, father argues that there is
insufficient evidence of risk because the social workers failed to
determine the time period during which the alleged incidents
occurred, thereby failing to establish that minor was ever exposed
to the incident or even at risk of a similar harm. This argument
ignores the record evidence establishing that by the parents’ own
statements, they had met less than a year before minor was born,
and that mother became pregnant about a month later.
Therefore, even if the incident took place early in their
relationship, no more than one year had passed, rather than the
“few” years that father argues.
Next, echoing the argument made by his attorney at the
adjudication hearing, father argues that because both he and
mother consistently denied domestic violence, and that S.A.’s
account of the incidents lacked sufficient specificity, and
therefore the court’s determination rested on impermissible
speculation about what had taken place. However, this
argument ignores other aspects of the record, including mother’s
prior denials of domestic violence with the half-siblings’ father
E.A., the consistency with which mother and father described the
incident and how they both accused S.A. of telling lies, as well as
mother’ statements to social workers denying that she had done
anything wrong in caring for the half-siblings, similarly blaming
S.A. for the removal of the half-siblings’ from mother’s custody.
All of this evidence supported the court’s express credibility

15
finding that it believed S.A.’s account of the incident, even
accounting for the fact that a five-year-old child could not be
expected to recall every detail. Deferring to the court’s credibility
determinations in believing S.A. and disbelieving mother and
father’s denials, and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of
the court’s decision, there is substantial evidence to support the
domestic violence jurisdictional allegations. In addition, based on
mother’s history and father’s response to mother’s positive drug
test, there was sufficient evidence of a risk that father would fail
to protect minor from mother’s substance abuse.
Finally, father argues there is no basis for the court’s
finding of a current risk to minor, because there was no evidence
that mother and father were living together or continuing their
relationship. We disagree, because although father did say he
ended the relationship because did not want to risk losing minor,
he and mother both also spoke of their relationship as mutually
supportive. Both parents were homeless because the court’s
detention order prevented them from living with paternal
grandparents. The evidence in the appellate record supports a
reasonable inference that mother and father would resume their
relationship, placing minor at risk of harm from domestic
violence.

C. Father’s Challenge to the Removal Order Also Fails

“ ‘At the dispositional hearing, a dependent child may not
be taken from the physical custody of the parent under section
361 unless the court finds there is clear and convincing evidence
there is or would be a substantial danger to the child’s physical
health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if

16
returned home, and that there are no reasonable means to
protect the child’s physical health without removing the
child.’ [Citations.]” (In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058,
1065.) “The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need
not have been harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus
of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re T.W. (2013)
214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) In deciding whether removal is
necessary, the court “may consider the parent’s past conduct and
current circumstances, and the parent’s response to the
conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention.” (In re
D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 332.) The court “must also
consider whether there are any reasonable protective measures
and services that can be implemented to prevent the child’s
removal from the parent’s physical custody.” (Ibid.)
We apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the
removal order, keeping in mind that the trial court must find
clear and convincing evidence to support removal. (In re V.L.
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154–155.) “When reviewing a finding
that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, 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.”
(Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) “The
appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a
sufficiently substantial nature to support the findings or orders.”
(In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206.)
Even under the higher standard of proof necessary at the
juvenile court level for ordering a child removed from parental
custody, we find sufficient evidence to support the court’s removal
order for the same reasons and based on the same evidence

17
supporting the court’s jurisdictional findings. Because we are not
reversing either the jurisdictional findings against father or the
dispositional order, we also decline father’s request that we
remand with directions to modify the programs in which father
must participate.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s June 30, 2025 jurisdictional findings
and removal order are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

BAKER, J.

18