Filed 9/3/26 In re X.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 X.M., a Person Coming Under B349714
the Juvenile Court Law.
___________________________________ (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 25CCJP02507)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Marguerite Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel Mansueto, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County
Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally
Son, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
A.F. (Father) is the father of a five-year-old daughter, X.M.
(Minor).1 The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction
over Minor because it found Father’s alcohol abuse and his
history of domestic violence with Minor’s mother A.M. (Mother)
placed Minor at substantial risk of suffering serious physical
harm. The court also ordered Minor removed from Father’s
custody. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and the associated removal
order.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2025, Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies
responded to a call of domestic violence at the family’s home.
Mother told the officers that Father was drunk and became
physically abusive during an argument: he punched her in the
shoulder and strangled her for approximately five seconds.
Mother also said that Father has a history of being verbally and
physically abusive toward her. Father declined to make any
statements to the deputies and they arrested him for domestic
assault (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)).
A few days after Father’s arrest, a social worker from the
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
(the Department) interviewed Mother and Minor. Mother
recounted she had arrived home from work to find Father inside
the apartment drinking beer while Minor played outside. Later
that evening, a dispute between the parents arose during dinner;
Mother tried to walk away, but Father followed and struck her on
1
This was X.M.’s age at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.
2
the arm. Then he began to yell and became more physically
aggressive: he grabbed her by the throat and choked her. As
Father was choking Mother, Minor intervened and hit him on the
leg to try and make him stop. Mother believed the only reason
Father stopped choking her was because he heard Minor crying.
Mother also told the social worker that there had been
prior unreported instances of physical violence between her and
Father. One occurred approximately three to four months earlier
when she tried to prevent Father from driving her and Minor
home while intoxicated; during that incident, Father struck her
in the arm, leaving a bruise. Another unreported incident
involved Father threatening Mother with a knife during a verbal
altercation about his alcohol consumption. In Mother’s opinion,
the instances of physical abuse were escalating.
Regarding Father’s alcohol use, Mother stated he drinks
often and does so in quite significant quantities (e.g., a 12-pack of
beer). She believed Father was unable to control how much he
drinks. Mother related that Father is sober when she goes to
work and leaves Minor in his care, but when she returns home he
is intoxicated—which caused her to wonder whether he fed Minor
in her absence. Mother advised that her concern about Father’s
alcohol consumption caused her to warn Minor’s school not to
release her to Father if he appeared to be under the influence of
alcohol.2
2
An administrator at Minor’s school confirmed that a few
months earlier Mother had requested the school not release
Minor to Father if he appeared to be under the influence of
alcohol. The administrator also reported that Father never
3
Minor told the social worker that on the day the police
came, Father had been drinking beer, he pushed and hit Mother
in the bedroom, and Minor then intervened and tried to get
Father to stop by kicking him and pulling on his clothes. Minor
also said she ran crying into the living room and explained that
she cries when she witnesses violence between her parents in the
hope that her crying will make Father stop abusing Mother—as
it had on an earlier occasion when Father hit Mother in the arm
in the car (making it turn purple). Minor reported Father usually
drinks a “box of beer” while he supervises her when Mother is at
work; after drinking his beer, Minor advised, Father goes to
sleep. Minor also reported Father becomes “mean” when he
drinks. She told the social worker that she does not want to see
Father and would like him to remain in jail.
A few days after interviewing Mother and Minor, the social
worker spoke to Father. He denied being drunk on the day of his
arrest but admitted he was under the influence of alcohol because
he consumed seven to eight beers prior to the dispute with
Mother. Although he denied punching or choking Mother during
their altercation, he admitted he pushed her but he claimed it
was “nothing serious,” “just normal.” He also denied Minor tried
to intervene during the dispute by kicking him and pulling on his
clothes; according to Father, Minor was not present. Father
denied any prior incidents of domestic violence, including
threatening Mother with a knife, but conceded that on one
occasion while in Mother’s car he “tapped” Mother’s arm with his
elbow while under the influence of alcohol.
appeared to be under the influence when picking up Minor from
school.
4
Regarding alcohol use, Father acknowledged he drinks
more than seven to eight cans of beer while supervising Minor
when Mother is at work. He denied having a drinking problem or
becoming aggressive while under the influence of alcohol, and he
maintained that he can manage his consumption of alcohol and
stop drinking at any time. Following his release from jail, and
after promising to Mother to stop drinking alcohol, Father
returned to the family home.
The Department filed a dependency petition alleging Minor
was a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section
300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).3 The subdivision (a) count in the
petition alleged Minor was at risk of suffering serious physical
harm inflicted nonaccidentally as a result of Father’s violent
conduct toward Mother. The two subdivision (b)(1) counts in the
petition averred Minor was at substantial risk of suffering
serious physical harm as a result of her parents’ history of
engaging in violent altercations and Father’s alcohol use.4
At the initial detention hearing, the juvenile court removed
Minor from Father’s custody, released her into Mother’s care, and
ordered monitored visitation for Father. The court also issued a
temporary restraining order protecting Mother from Father.
Before the jurisdiction hearing on the dependency petition,
a Department investigator re-interviewed Minor and her parents.
3
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
4
In connection with each of the subdivision (b) counts, the
Department alleged Mother failed to protect Minor by allowing
Father to reside in the family home and have unlimited access to
them.
5
Minor in her (re)interview denied seeing Father hit or
choke Mother on the day of his arrest and denied intervening to
stop the assault. Minor also denied witnessing Father physically
abuse Mother on any prior occasion. She also stated neither
Father nor Mother consumed beer.
Mother reaffirmed Father punched and choked her on the
day he was arrested, but this time she denied Father had bruised
her arm during a prior argument in her vehicle and denied
Father had ever threatened her with a knife. Mother also denied
ever noticing Father being intoxicated when she returned home
from work.
Father in his interview admitted to pushing Mother and
hitting her on the arm on the night of his arrest, but he denied
choking her and denied Minor intervened in the altercation. He
also denied any prior incidents of domestic violence. Father
admitted to having a “problem” with alcohol since he was 18
years old and described drinking “6, 7 beers” at a time.5 Father
further admitted to consuming alcohol on occasion while caring
for Minor on his own, admitted such conduct interfered with the
“attention” Minor needed, and admitted Mother was aware of his
drinking while caring for Minor. Father said, that as a result, he
had begun participating in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).
At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing held
in October 2025, the juvenile court admitted the Department’s
reports into evidence. The court sustained the petition as pled,
removed Minor from Father’s care, placed her with Mother, and
ordered monitored visitation and family preservation services. In
5
Father was 39 years old at the initiation of dependency
proceedings.
6
addition, the court granted Mother’s request for a permanent
restraining order, but the court observed that it was “not
confident that [Mother] will follow it”—pointing to the more
recent interviews in which Mother had started to recant some
prior allegations of abuse and Minor’s recantation of some prior
statements, which the court attributed to “coaching by her
parents.”
II. DISCUSSION
Father’s challenges to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction
findings and removal order lack merit. There is substantial and
mostly undisputed evidence Father assaulted Mother in Minor’s
presence (compelling Minor to intervene to try to stop it). That
establishes the requisite substantial risk of serious physical
harm, and Father’s only rejoinder (that Mother said she no longer
wanted to be in a relationship with him and obtained a
restraining order) is unconvincing. The jurisdiction hearing was
held just two months after Father hit and choked Mother, and
multiple aspects of the case history gave the juvenile court
adequate reason to believe that the risk to Minor remained (as
the court observed when it expressly stated on the record that it
had doubts whether the parties would comply with the
restraining order). For much the same reasons, plus Father’s
longstanding alcohol abuse, the juvenile court’s order removing
Minor from Father’s custody was proper.
A. Substantial Evidence Supports Dependency
Jurisdiction
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1) authorizes a juvenile court to
assume dependency jurisdiction over a child when “[t]he child has
7
suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer,
serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] (A) [t]he
failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately
supervise or protect the child.” We review a juvenile court’s
jurisdiction findings for substantial evidence, drawing “‘all
reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the
findings . . . [and] review[ing] the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re
R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)
The evidence that Father physically abused Mother in
Minor’s presence—and that Minor intervened to try to stop the
violence while it was occurring—was quite strong. Mother’s
statements, Minor’s (initial) statements, and the records of
Father’s arrest all established Father’s domestic violence and
only he denied it (though even he conceded there had been
physical contact, which he described as “nothing serious” or just a
“tap[ ]”). That establishes dependency jurisdiction under section
300, subdivision (b)(1) was proper. (See, e.g., In re T.V. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 126, 134-135; In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th
930, 941-942; In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568, 575-576,
disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989; compare In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th
713, 716-717 [evidence of domestic violence insufficient to
support jurisdiction where the single incident occurred two to
seven years earlier and none of the children witnessed it],
disapproved on another ground in In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th
266.)
Father believes otherwise only because he asserts there
was no chance that domestic violence, and the concomitant threat
of serious physical harm to Minor, would recur in light of
8
Mother’s expressed view that she no longer wanted to be in a
relationship with Father and the restraining order that the
juvenile court entered. The juvenile court, however, was
unconvinced Father and Mother would steadfastly adhere to the
terms of the restraining order, and with good reason. Mother and
Father had been living together for six years, there had been
prior unreported instances of domestic violence, Mother agreed to
receive Father back into the family home even after his arrest for
hitting and choking her in Minor’s presence, neither Mother nor
Father were engaged in any programming to prevent domestic
violence (at the time of the jurisdiction hearing), and Mother (and
Minor) had begun to recant some aspects of their prior
descriptions of Father’s domestic violence. Particularly when the
jurisdiction hearing was held just over two months after the
domestic violence giving rise to the dependency petition had
occurred, the juvenile court was reasonably concerned there
would be further interaction between Mother and Father and,
accordingly, a substantial risk of further domestic violence when
Minor was around—particularly in light of Father’s alcohol abuse
problem that had persisted for over two decades.
Because we conclude the court’s finding that Father’s
domestic violence posed a substantial risk of serious physical
harm to Minor, we need not discuss the juvenile court’s other
bases for assuming jurisdiction. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766,
773.)
B. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Removal Order
A juvenile court may not remove a child from a parent’s
custody unless it “finds clear and convincing evidence” that
“[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical
9
health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of
the minor if the minor were returned home, and 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)(1).)
“A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of: (1)
parental inability to provide proper care for the minor; and (2)
potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the
parent.” (In re T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Our
review of a removal order is for substantial evidence. (In re V.L.
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 154-155; see also O.B., supra, 9
Cal.5th at 1011-1012.)
The juvenile court’s finding of a danger to Minor’s physical
well-being if placed with Father is well justified by the domestic
violence we have already described and Father’s longstanding
alcohol abuse that he (by that time) had only just begun to
attempt to address via attendance at AA meetings. The fact that
Minor had not yet suffered actual physical harm does not
undermine the evidence supporting removal. “‘The 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.’ [Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170.)
10
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and removal order
are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
11