Filed 9/1/26 In re Sebastian M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEBASTIAN M., a Person B350062
Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP06085)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEON M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, George A. Turner, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel A. Vespi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
In October 2025, the juvenile court declared Sebastian M.
(born December 2016) to be a person described by Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300.1 Deon M. (father) requested the
juvenile court immediately terminate jurisdiction and grant him
physical custody of the child. Though the child was released to
father, the juvenile court denied father’s request to terminate
jurisdiction and instead retained jurisdiction and granted
Elisa C. (mother) reunification services.2 For the reasons set
forth below, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the juvenile
court’s order denying father’s request to terminate jurisdiction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior child welfare case
Sebastian was declared a dependent of the juvenile court in
2018 after his two-month-old paternal half sibling, C.M., was
“found to be suffering from a detrimental condition consisting of a
complex branching skull fracture involving both sides of the skull
and occipital bone, swelling and bleeding into [C.M.’s] brain
including a diffuse subcarotid hemorrhage, a left subdural
hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage in the third ventricle,
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
2
left frontal lobe contusion with bilateral subdural hematomas,
left temporal lobe hematoma and hemorrhage on the right frontal
paramedian cortex, abnormal signal in the anterior corpus
collosum, scattered intraparenchymal hemorrhages and
herniation of the brain.” Father gave various explanations.
Sebastian’s sibling’s injuries were consistent with nonaccidental
trauma. The sibling’s condition would not ordinarily occur except
as the result of deliberate, unreasonable and neglectful acts by
father, who had care, custody and control of the sibling.
The juvenile court ultimately terminated jurisdiction over
Sebastian, awarding mother sole physical custody and father
monitored visits.
Current referral and investigation
In August 2025, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral
regarding Sebastian. The police responded to an incident of
domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend, Daniel H.
Mother was intoxicated, belligerent, and uncooperative. She
denied any physical violence had occurred. Daniel reported
mother repeatedly punched him during the incident, and an
officer observed sustained redness on the left side of Daniel’s face
and chest. Mother was arrested for domestic violence.
Sebastian, who was sleeping in another room of the house, was
taken into protective custody.
Mother identified father as Sebastian’s parent. She said
father was fully involved in the child’s life and was a good father.
She described father as loving and overprotective of the child.
Father provided financial support. Mother denied a family law
order was in place, stating they had tried their best to avoid
3
going to court. Their verbal agreement allowed Sebastian to visit
with father Friday through Sunday.
DCFS contacted father, who came, picked up Sebastian and
brought him to father’s home.
DCFS interviewed then-eight-year-old Sebastian.
Sebastian had been told mother was arrested for “acting up,”
however, the child did not know what she did. He stated he was
asleep when the police arrived at the home. He did not know
about mother punching anyone but said mother and Daniel
argued a lot, which he did not like. Sebastian had observed
mother and Daniel name-calling and hitting each other with
objects. The child indicated these things did not happen at
father’s home.
Father said mother was a good mother, but she moved
around. Father wanted Sebastian to have stability. Father said
Sebastian had been in his care for about a year and a half, until
about a month earlier when mother picked up the child and said
she would keep him in her custody. Mother moved Sebastian to a
school close to her. He was supposed to start school on
August 14, 2025. Father reported Sebastian visited every
weekend. Father was shocked about mother’s arrest because he
believed she was doing okay the last time he saw her. Father
agreed the child should be placed in his home. Paternal
grandmother would assist with the child’s care.
Section 300 petition and initial proceedings
On August 6, 2025, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of Sebastian alleging he was at substantial risk of serious
physical harm as a result of mother’s history of substance abuse,
use of alcohol, and violent altercations with Daniel. The petition
additionally alleged Sebastian was at risk due to the
4
nonaccidental trauma suffered by Sebastian’s half-sibling C.M. in
2018, resulting in father’s no contest plea under Penal Code
section 273a, subdivision (a).
A minute order from father’s 2019 criminal proceedings
indicated after pleading no contest to a child endangerment
charge under Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a), father was
given credit for completing 52 weeks of parenting classes. Father
received a suspended sentence and was placed on formal
probation. DCFS subsequently verified that father’s probation
case expired in January 2024.
At the initial hearing on August 20, 2025, the juvenile court
ordered Sebastian detained from mother and released to father
under the supervision of DCFS.
Jurisdiction/disposition report
In its jurisdiction/disposition report filed in October 2025,
DCFS reported Sebastian continued to live with father.
Sebastian reported he liked living with father and felt good about
the situation. When asked if he wanted to return to mother’s
care, Sebastian said, “I don’t know, not really … .” (CT 77)~
Sebastian had observed Daniel push mother and felt scared.
During the incident, he could not stop crying and was breathing
heavily. He had previously observed Daniel push or hit mother
on three occasions. When asked how he felt on these occasions,
Sebastian said he felt “[s]cared and I felt like I wanted to punch
him.” Sebastian observed mother drinking three beer bottles at a
restaurant on August 4, 2025, and said she talked “different” and
moved “kind of weird” afterward. Sebastian was scared when
mother and Daniel drank beer because he thought they might
have to go to the hospital.
5
Mother said she never had any issues with father’s
parenting. She said Sebastian “loves being at his dad’s and being
with his brothers. He has never come and told me anything
negative about him.” Mother had a neutral relationship with
father’s wife, Jennifer H. (stepmother). Mother said stepmother
“is a sweet girl and has been involved in Sebastian’s life for a long
time.” Mother denied there had been any amendments to the
family law order previously issued by the juvenile court but said
she had thought about formally allowing father shared custody of
Sebastian.
Father said mother had a history of “partying and heavily
drinking alcohol at such events.” Father had been told by mutual
friends that mother would leave Sebastian with friends to “go
party.” Mother would sometimes end her visits early and drop
Sebastian at his home so she could “go party.” Each time mother
began a new relationship, she would take Sebastian to live with
her, but once the relationship ended, she would send the child to
live with father. Father said Sebastian had become accustomed
to the instability in his life. Father recently asked Sebastian if
he made friends at school, and Sebastian responded, “I don’t care
about making friends, I’m going to move again.” Father was
heartbroken to hear that. Father wanted to get physical custody
of Sebastian to put a stop to the instability and inconsistency
Sebastian had experienced.
Father joined a fatherhood program in June 2025. Since
his previous dependency case, father had been trying to “improve
and be a better man and father to my children.” Father had been
the primary financial provider for Sebastian, as mother lived an
unstable life involving constant moving around and getting
6
involved in different relationships. Father said mother had no
consideration for Sebastian’s emotional stability or education.
Stepmother had been part of Sebastian’s life since he was
about 11 months old. Stepmother was concerned about the long-
term effects of mother’s situation on Sebastian. Stepmother and
father had already sought therapeutic support for Sebastian and
had an intake appointment scheduled for September 22, 2025.
The family also had support from the USC Head Start program,
which assisted in linking the family to services.
Stepmother reported Sebastian lived with father and would
visit mother on weekends. However, there were times when
mother would cancel her visits or end them early to go out with
friends. There was a time when Sebastian did not have visits
with mother for about a month, and during that time there was
an incident at school when Sebastian uncharacteristically pulled
a chain off a student. Stepmother said she and father sought
support from a counselor to explain to Sebastian that what he did
was not appropriate. Sebastian was receptive to the intervention
and wrote a letter of apology to the other student.
Stepmother said her priority was to ensure Sebastian’s
well-being and for him to have a healthy relationship with
mother. Stepmother acknowledged Sebastian needed mother,
but she believed everyone involved needed time to work on their
respective issues for the child’s overall well-being.
Paternal grandmother said mother had never prioritized
Sebastian’s stability. She moved the child from place to place
and exposed him to different people without concern for his
safety. Paternal grandmother acknowledged mother became a
mother at a very young age and did not have an appropriate
maternal figure to model. However, paternal grandmother still
7
expressed frustration that mother would prefer to go out and
party rather than prioritize her son. Paternal grandmother
expressed hope this incident would be a life-changing experience
for mother, who would then work on being a better mother for
Sebastian, who needed mother.
Based on the information gathered throughout the
investigation, DCFS recommended “this family would benefit
from Court supervision to ensure the safety of the child.”
(Boldface omitted.) DCFS explained its “assessment that the
family needs formal intervention to address the underlying needs
that led to the family’s involvement with [DCFS]. [Mother] needs
to learn the importance of healthy relationships, the effects of a
parent’s alcohol consumption on a child, the importance of
stability in a child’s development, and the importance of a
healthy co-parenting relationship.… Sebastian needs therapeutic
services to address the traumatic event he experienced while
under the care of [mother] and the instability he has
experienced.”
Jurisdiction and disposition proceedings
On October 8, 2025, the juvenile court adjudicated the
section 300 petition. Mother waived her right to trial on the
jurisdictional issues in exchange for DCFS agreeing to dismiss
the section 300, subdivision (b)(1) allegation regarding domestic
violence. Following mother’s no contest plea, the juvenile court
sustained amended counts in the section 300 petition addressing
mother’s history of alcohol use and engagement in violent
altercations in the presence of the child.
The court dismissed the count (j) addressing father’s prior
case involving non-accidental trauma to the paternal half sibling.
The court found there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
8
allegation, noting the allegation was “very remote in time.” The
court also noted “we’re … talking about minors who are in very
different situations,” as the injured minor in count (j) was only
two months old at the time. The court further noted father had
successfully completed probation and was still enrolled in
“programming to assist in addressing issues of fatherhood.”
Finally, the court noted the minor involved in the prior case was
currently under the care and custody of father. Father was
dismissed from the petition.
As to disposition, DCFS argued the child should be
removed from mother and placed with father, with services
provided to both parents. Father’s counsel objected to the court
keeping the case open, as father was nonoffending and had been
caring for Sebastian without any concerns. In addition, father
informed his attorney that Sebastian had been getting
overwhelmed with the interviews from DCFS and argued it was
in Sebastian’s best interest to be free of court involvement.
Mother’s attorney argued the case should not be terminated
and reunification services should be offered to mother. Mother’s
attorney argued mother had separated from Daniel, was
participating in treatment programs, the court had an obligation
to keep the family together, and it was in Sebastian’s best
interest to maintain a relationship with mother. Mother’s
attorney urged the court to not close the case because mother
“has just done so well in everything without even being ordered
and loves her child[] dearly and wants to continue to properly
coparent with the father.”
Sebastian’s attorney asked the juvenile court to close the
case, noting it was great that mother had taken initiative and
wanted to better herself, but argued “there is simply no reason to
9
keep this family under court supervision.” The child’s attorney
also mentioned the child was having “difficulty … dealing with
court, with social workers, attorneys, just the case being open
does weigh on a child.”
The juvenile court acknowledged the process could have a
negative effect on Sebastian, stating, “That is something that the
court takes very seriously because the goal in this area of law …
is to bring families together through the process of family
reunification and balance that against what is in the best interest
of the minor … so that is what this court is doing.” The court
continued, “in reviewing this case and being knowledgeable about
intimate partner violence, cycle of violence and the impact that it
has on not just the people who are physically in the cycle of
violence but the collaterals, I think that the minor experiencing
this and witnessing this and having to process it is in and of itself
overwhelming. And absent some work, there is a high likelihood
… this would be a situation that he … buries, and that is not
good for him in the long term.” The court further noted, “For
better or for worse, he witnessed this stuff. For better or for
worse, it’s a part of his experience growing up. And for better or
for worse, in the same way that the mother and the father need
tools to be able to learn and grow and develop and to really take
some time to think through this overwhelming process, I also
think the minor needs that help just as much.” Although
Sebastian was more comfortable with father, the court wanted
mother to do some work “mending [her] relationship” with
Sebastian.
The juvenile court stated its goal to “make parties whole
and bring relationships together.” For that reason, the court was
10
“inclined to grant reunification services for the mother and not
terminate the case or terminate jurisdiction.”
The juvenile court declared Sebastian a dependent of the
court, removed him from mother’s custody, and released him to
father. The court ordered mother to attend individual
counseling, a 12-step program, random substance testing, and
parenting classes. The court ordered an individual counseling
assessment for the child.
On October 27, 2025, father filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts the juvenile court erred in declining to
terminate jurisdiction because father was nonoffending, father
already completed services, and continued supervision was not
necessary.
I. Applicable law and standard of review
At the jurisdiction stage of a dependency proceeding, the
juvenile court determines whether the child is described by
section 300. If the court finds a basis to assume jurisdiction, the
court is then required to conduct a disposition hearing. (§ 358,
subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.)
At the disposition stage of the proceedings, the court considers
whether the child may remain with the parents and orders
appropriate reunification services. (Cynthia D., at p. 248.)
When the court determines at the dispositional stage the
child should be removed from his or her custodial parent, the
court may consider placing the child with a noncustodial parent.
In such cases, the court’s placement decision is governed by
section 361.2, subdivision (a), which provides, “If a court orders
removal of a child pursuant to section 361, the court shall first
11
determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the
child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions
arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300,
who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent
requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent
unless it finds that placement with that parent would be
detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child.”
Pursuant to section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1), the court may
“[o]rder that the [previously noncustodial] parent become legal
and physical custodian of the child[,] provide reasonable
visitation by the noncustodial parent [and] terminate its
jurisdiction over the child.”
Alternatively, pursuant to section 361.2, subdivision (b)(3),
the court may “[o]rder that the parent assume custody subject to
the supervision of the juvenile court. In that case the court may
order that reunification services be provided to the parent or
guardian from whom the child is being removed, or the court may
order that services be provided solely to the parent who is
assuming physical custody in order to allow that parent to retain
later custody without court supervision, or that services be
provided to both parents, in which case the court shall determine,
at review hearings held pursuant to Section 366, which parent, if
either, shall have custody of the child.”
The juvenile court has broad discretion to make any orders
necessary to protect the dependent child. (§ 361, subd. (a).)
“[T]he court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care,
supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the
child” (§ 362, subd. (a)), and may direct orders to the parents of
12
the minor “as the court deems necessary and proper for the best
interests of or for the rehabilitation of the minor” (§ 245.5).
The juvenile court’s dispositional order retaining
jurisdiction over the minor is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
(In re Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1135.) Under this
standard, “‘“a reviewing court will not disturb that decision
unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion
by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd
determination.”’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
“‘“The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial
court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more
inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for
that of the trial court.”’” (Id. at pp. 318–319.)
II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
retaining jurisdiction
Father argues the juvenile court did not apply the correct
legal standard in determining whether to terminate jurisdiction.
Father cites In re Austin P., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at page 1134
for the proposition that the appropriate legal standard is
“whether there is a need for continuing supervision.” Instead of
considering this standard, father argues, the court explained that
it was balancing the goal of family reunification with the best
interests of the minor.
In reviewing the juvenile court’s expressed rationale for
retaining jurisdiction over Sebastian, there is no indication the
court used the wrong standard. The court explained it wanted to
ensure Sebastian received services for the effects of his exposure
to mother’s substance abuse and domestic violence. In addition,
the court wanted to provide mother with individual counseling, a
13
substance abuse program, and parenting instruction. The
juvenile court’s goal was to repair mother’s relationship with the
child and hopefully keep the family together. For that reason,
the juvenile court granted mother reunification services rather
than terminate the case.
The above rationale shows the court considered factors
relevant to the question of whether there was a need for
continuing supervision. The court explained in detail why it
concluded continued jurisdiction was necessary. The court was
not required to state the applicable legal standard. Instead, it
was father’s burden to affirmatively show the wrong standard
was applied. (F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.) Father
has not done so.
The juvenile court’s decision that there was a need for
continuing jurisdiction was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The
juvenile court determined jurisdiction was necessary to offer
services to mother and Sebastian and to allow them time to
repair their relationship. DCFS had advocated for continued
jurisdiction, opining “the family needs formal intervention to
address the underlying needs that led to the family’s involvement
with [DCFS].” DCFS expressed concern that mother needed to
learn the effects of alcohol consumption on a child as well as the
importance of stability in a child’s development. In addition,
DCFS opined Sebastian needed therapeutic services to address
the trauma he experienced while in mother’s care.
Various relatives interviewed also emphasized the
importance of Sebastian’s relationship with mother. Stepmother
expressed concern about the long-term effects the incident would
have on Sebastian and understood the importance of a healthy
relationship between Sebastian and mother. Paternal
14
grandmother expressed her hope that this would be a life-
changing experience for mother, such that mother would take
advantage of the opportunity to work on being a better mother for
Sebastian. Paternal grandmother noted Sebastian needed his
mother.
Since Sebastian and mother needed services to protect the
child’s well-being, it was not appropriate for the juvenile court to
terminate jurisdiction. (In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th
197, 211 (Destiny D.) [“Jurisdiction should not be terminated
unless the court concludes services and ongoing supervision are
not necessary to protect the child.”].)3
Father emphasizes that he provided proof of completion of
services in the prior dependency matter and there were no safety
concerns for Sebastian in father’s care. Father’s status as a
“nonoffending” parent is not determinative of the juvenile court’s
decision to retain jurisdiction over the child. (Destiny D., supra,
15 Cal.App.5th at p. 209.) Instead, the court must determine
whether ongoing supervision is necessary. Here, the juvenile
court set forth in detail the reasons such supervision was
necessary. Under the applicable standard of review in this
matter, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the
juvenile court, and we must affirm the juvenile court’s decision
3 We reject father’s interpretation of Destiny D. as referring
only to a situation where both parents require services. Instead,
the Destiny D. court made it clear “the court’s decision is to be
guided by the relevant facts.” (Destiny D., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th
at p. 211.) The court also noted, “it will be an unusual case when
protections imposed at disposition will be sufficient to permit the
conclusion that termination is appropriate.” (Ibid.) Thus,
although jurisdiction was terminated in Destiny D., the legal
principles are applicable here.
15
unless the court exceeded the bounds of legal reason. (In re
Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.)
Father has not established that the juvenile court abused
its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over Sebastian.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
We concur:
RICHARDSON, J.
GOORVITCH, J.
16