Filed 9/23/26 In re A.B. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re A.B. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E087911
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2500294)
v. OPINION
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge.
Affirmed.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Chief Assistant County
Counsel, Julie Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant A.T. (Mother) appeals from the jurisdiction and exit
orders of the juvenile court regarding her three daughters, A.B. (born February 2014),
K.B. (born May 2016) and C.B. (born April 2019) (collectively, Minors). After finding
allegations against Mother true in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare Code section 300,
subdivision (b)(1),1 the juvenile court ordered joint physical and legal custody with the
primary residence for Minors be with D.B. (Father), Mother was to have custody of
Minors every other weekend, and dismissed the dependency case.
On appeal, Mother contends this court should reverse the jurisdictional findings
and orders and dismiss the section 300 petition, or remand for the juvenile court to
dismiss the orders, as insufficient evidence was presented to support the allegations in the
section 300 petition. If this Court does not reverse the jurisdictional findings, it should
reverse the juvenile court’s exit orders reducing her time with Minors to every other
weekend, as it was not in the Minors’ best interests to have their time with Mother
reduced. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. OUT-OF-CUSTODY REPORT AND SECTION 300 PETITION
The family was currently involved in a family law case. A hearing was held on
November 23, 2022, in family court regarding child custody and other matters. At that
hearing, joint legal and physical custody was awarded to Mother and Father (collectively,
Parents). The party’s custody schedule involved alternating weeks and weekends. The
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.
2
order set up a custody schedule for holidays. On July 31, 2024, a hearing was held on a
request for order. Parents were to continue to have joint physical and legal custody.
Parents were ordered not to use alcohol, marijuana or narcotics within 12 hours of their
time with Minors. Parents were to attend co-parenting classes. Minors were to be
enrolled in counseling.
On September 11, 2025, plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS) received an immediate response referral alleging sexual
abuse and general neglect. Minors, when they were in the care of Mother, lived with
Mother, Mother’s boyfriend (Boyfriend), and Boyfriend’s eight-year-old daughter, B.W.
It was reported that B.W. and K had been touching one another inappropriately. This was
not an isolated incident. B.W. and K had a history of touching each other. Mother
reported to DPSS on September 11, 2025, that B.W. had a communicable disease which
gave her cold sores.
A social worker visited Mother at her home. Boyfriend and B.W. were present.
Mother and Boyfriend had been in a relationship for six years. Mother reported to the
social worker that on September 9, 2025, she asked K if she and B.W. had been doing
anything inappropriate. K said “no,” but told her B.W. had asked her on September 7,
2025, if she wanted to do inappropriate things. K did not engage in inappropriate
behavior. Mother disclosed that three years prior, she found K and B.W. with their pants
down and “shaking their buttocks.” They also told her that they touched each other’s
vaginal area. After this incident, Boyfriend and Mother kept K, C, and B.W. from
3
sharing a room for one year. Mother believed that there was no longer an issue and
allowed them to be in the same room.
Mother had asked K recently about possible inappropriate behavior because B.W.
and B.W.’s stepsibling, C.O., had a communicable disease. C.O. had the disease in her
mouth and “other parts.” Mother was upset that B.W. had brought the disease into her
home. Mother saw a bump on B.W.’s lips and gave her cream for it. B.W. had these
bumps twice each month. She believed C.O. could have contracted the communicable
disease from B.W. inappropriately touching C.O.
Mother denied that Minors were exposed to sexual content in her home. She
believed that B.W. was teaching Minors about sexual behaviors. Mother stated that she
could not keep B.W. and K in separate rooms because A had just gotten her own room
and, “ ‘Just because B.W. does stupid things does not mean she needs to punish [A].’ ”
The social worker reminded Mother that K was also engaging in inappropriate behaviors.
Mother denied that K was engaging in these behaviors and that it was all initiated by
B.W. Mother agreed to supervise more while Minors and B.W. were in the home.
Mother reported that Minors had participated in six months of court-ordered therapy and
had graduated. She did not think they needed further therapy.
Boyfriend was also interviewed. He was aware of sexualized behaviors between
B.W. and K in the past. He did not know anything about the recent incident. Boyfriend
believed that B.W. was learning these behaviors in her mother’s home. Boyfriend
wanted B.W. and K in separate bedrooms.
4
Father was also interviewed. Father stated that Mother had advised him that
Minors were done doing therapy; he wanted them to continue with therapy. Father
believed Mother was influenced by Boyfriend to stop the therapy. He offered to drive
them to their appointments, but Mother had declined. K had been diagnosed with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and Father gave her medication. Mother
stopped giving K the medication. Mother advised Father that it was B.W. who was
displaying inappropriate behaviors. Father was aware that in the past, K and B.W. played
a game of Truth or Dare and they touched each other’s buttocks. B.W. asked K to kiss
her knees and belly button. K had recently told Father that B.W. was acting “weird”
again. K felt she could not tell Mother about the behaviors as she and Boyfriend would
call her a liar. Father expressed that there was no supervision in Mother’s home.
K had told Father that B.W. grabbed her hand and put it on her vaginal area.
Minors did not have a history of cold sores. Father had seen B.W. with a communicable
disease and told Minors not to share anything with her.
K was interviewed at school. K reported that law enforcement had been to their
home a couple of years prior because Boyfriend had spanked her, A, and C. She had seen
Boyfriend drink an alcoholic beverage, and sometimes he drank in the car with her. She
felt safe in Father’s home and “kind of” safe in Mother’s home. K stated Boyfriend was
mean and yelled a lot. Three weeks prior, B.W. had K and C play a game called Truth or
Dare. B.W. dared K and C to take off all their clothes and dance. K and C refused.
B.W. had asked K to touch B.W.’s private part, but K refused. B.W. tried to touch K’s
private part, but K moved her hand away. K did not tell Mother because B.W. would lie
5
and say that it did not happen. K, C, and B.W. shared a room. B.W. had cold sores all
the time.
C was interviewed. C felt comfortable in the homes of both parents. She
expressed that B.W. had been “really weird,” and played “weird” games like Truth or
Dare. B.W. would dare her to take off her pants, but she refused. B.W. had touched C’s
vaginal area over her clothes. C did not tell Parents because B.W. would insist that it did
not happen.
A was interviewed. She denied seeing any alcohol or drugs in their homes. Law
enforcement had come to their house one time because Boyfriend had spanked her, K,
and C. She had not witnessed inappropriate touching between K, C, and B.W. A had her
own room. She had seen B.W. with cold sores. She had never played Truth or Dare with
B.W.
Father’s girlfriend was interviewed. She reported Minors had been happier
staying with Mother when Mother was not with Boyfriend. She did not know why
Mother allowed K, C, and B.W. to share a room with the history of inappropriate
behavior. She mentioned that B.W. and K had licked each other’s vaginal area, but
Mother denied it ever happened. She and Father expressed concern with Mother about K
and B.W. sharing a room, but Mother did not mitigate the concerns. She was aware that
B.W. had dared C to take off her clothes and shake her buttocks. Further, B.W. had
grabbed K’s hands and put them on B.W.’s private part.
Mother reported that since DPSS became involved, she was having K and C sleep
in the bedroom and B.W. sleep in the living room. Mother complained about having to
6
constantly supervise the three girls when they were together. Mother also asked the
social worker to interview B.W. because she told Mother and Boyfriend she learned the
sexualized behavior from her mother. The social worker explained to Mother that the
problem was that B.W. brought the sexualized behavior into her home. This required
ongoing supervision.
Father contacted DPSS. His girlfriend was told by Minors that Mother had B.W.
put her mattress in the dining room to sleep at night. C reported that she had grabbed
B.W.’s buttocks the past weekend. Father was concerned with the supervision in
Mother’s home.
There were several prior referrals in 2022 and 2024 involving Boyfriend and
Minors. There was a report that Boyfriend had tools and unsafe materials in his front
yard. Mother and Minors were living in the house. It was cleaned up and no referral was
made. There was also the prior referral based on Boyfriend spanking K and A. Another
referral involved Boyfriend reportedly driving under the influence while Minors and
B.W. were in the car. This occurred in January 2024. Mother denied any knowledge of
Boyfriend driving under the influence. Boyfriend denied ever driving under the
influence. The allegations of general neglect were unfounded and the case was closed.
DPSS was concerned about the wellbeing of Minors in the care of Mother. There
were ongoing concerns about supervision. Despite concerns about sexually inappropriate
behavior, Mother had failed to provide proper supervision. There were no concerns
about Father. DPSS believed that Minors could stay in the care of Parents.
7
On September 29, 2025, DPSS filed its Out of Custody Initial Petition Report
(Petition) (all caps and boldface omitted). DPSS recommended that the trial court find a
prima facie showing had been made as to Minors that they came within section 300,
subdivision (b). It was recommended that Minors remain in the care of Father and
Mother, and the matter be set for a jurisdiction/disposition hearing. It was alleged under
section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(4), against Mother (b-1) Mother demonstrates
limited ability to protect the children, in that she allows the children to sleep in the same
room, despite having knowledge of the children’s sexualized behaviors towards each
other. Further, Mother minimizes the children’s behaviors and refuses to separate the
children from sleeping in the same room, claiming it is an inconvenience to separate
them, which places the children at great risk of physical and emotional harm.; (b-2)
Mother neglects the children’s mental health needs in that she fails to obtain ongoing
mental health counseling for the children. Further, Mother stopped giving K medication
for the child’s ADHD diagnosis, placing the children at risk of serious injury, neglect
and/or abuse; and (b-3) Mother fails to protect the children in that she allowed her partner
to supervise the children while he was under the influence of alcohol. In addition, K
disclosed Mother’s partner had alcohol in his car, which places the children’s safety and
well-being at risk.
An addendum report was filed on October 9, 2025. Minors remained in the joint
care of Parents. B.W. had been interviewed on October 1, 2025. She reported that K and
C were mean to her. She slept on a mattress in the living room during the week when she
stayed with Boyfriend, her father. On the weekend, she would sleep in the bedroom, and
8
K and C would sleep in the living room. B.W., K, and C still played together, and
Boyfriend and Mother did not supervise them. She denied any further inappropriate
interactions with K or C. B.W. did not feel safe in Boyfriend’s home because K and C
were mean to her.
K was interviewed again. B.W. had not recently asked to play Truth or Dare. If
they played together, they had to keep the bedroom door open. Mother would supervise
from the couch or put a camera in the bedroom. A was also interviewed again. She
expressed that Mother watched when B.W., K, and C played together. B.W. had separate
plates, bowls and utensils. A had not observed Boyfriend drinking while driving.
Mother wanted to pay to have B.W. take a lie detector test. The social worker
informed Mother it was not appropriate for a child to take a lie detector test. Mother also
reported that she had been informed by the school authorities that when Minors were
staying with Father, they were oftentimes late for school. This impacted their attendance
and grades.
On October 6, 2025, Father reported to DPSS that Minors and B.W. had been
playing in the garage at Mother’s house. B.W. was jumping up and down and her pants
“fell down.” She sat and laughed about it. K told Father that she saw B.W. unbutton her
pants before jumping.
The first hearing on the Petition was conducted on October 14, 2025. DPSS
requested that the juvenile court find that Minors fall within section 300 and set a
jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Minors were to remain in the care of Parents. Counsel
for Minors requested that Minors spend as little time with B.W. as possible when staying
9
with Mother. Father was seeking full-time custody of Minors as K did not feel safe in
Mother’s home. Mother’s counsel reported that Mother was willing to try to change the
time that she and Boyfriend had custody of B.W. Father was named the presumed father.
The matter was continued for Mother to address changing custody times so that the time
Minors spent with B.W. was minimized. Until the continued hearing, Minors were to
stay with Father.
DPSS filed an addendum report for the continued hearing. The mother of B.W.
had agreed to change the custody arrangement with Boyfriend so that B.W. would not be
in the home of Mother and Boyfriend with Minors when they were with Mother. Father
continued to request that he have care of Minors full time despite the change in schedule
for B.W., as he was concerned about the supervision in Mother’s home. DPSS remained
concerned about Mother’s ability to supervise Minors. She minimized the sexual conduct
among the children and made “minimal protective arrangements” to mitigate the
concerns about sexual conduct. Mother had also expressed that ongoing supervision in
her home was an inconvenience. DPSS believed Minors could remain in Mother’s and
Father’s homes with DPSS oversight.
The continued hearing was conducted on October 17, 2025. The parties had
agreed to a custody schedule based on B.W. not being present in Mother’s home when
Minors were with her. Father expressed concern that Minors were not enrolled in therapy
and that Mother had discontinued K’s ADHD medication. Mother responded that Minors
had completed six months of therapy and had “graduated.” Further, Mother had been
10
advised by various medical professionals that K did not have ADHD, and that was the
reason she discontinued medication.
B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION REPORT
DPSS filed their jurisdiction/disposition report on November 12, 2025. DPSS
recommended that the b-1, b-2 and b-3 allegations under section 300 be found true by a
preponderance of the evidence, and Minors be declared dependents. It recommended that
family maintenance services be provided to Parents. Parents would share joint and
physical custody and keep the custody schedule of alternating weeks and weekends.
On May 15, 2024, Mother filed an ex parte request for full physical and legal
custody in family court. She insisted that Minors were suffering emotional harm in
Father’s care and that he was exhibiting erratic behavior. Father forced Minors to tell
him everything that happened while in Mother’s care. Minors reported to Father that
Mother would spank them. Father responded on July 14, 2025, that he wanted sole legal
and physical custody. Mother oftentimes pulled Minors out of school. Further, Mother
was living with Boyfriend, and their relationship was unstable. Boyfriend exhibited
“erratic and angry behavior.” K and A had been crying at school and reported that
Boyfriend had spanked them while they were returning from a trip. He also reported that
K and B.W. had previously engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. On July 31, 2024,
Parents were ordered to enroll in parenting classes and Minors were to attend therapy.
DPSS interviewed A on November 5, 2025, with Mother present. She expressed
that everyone in the family got along well. A enjoyed therapy, but did not believe that
she needed to continue therapy. A denied having suffered sexual abuse. K was
11
interviewed the same day with Mother present. Father sometimes would talk badly about
Mother. K also liked therapy, but she did not think she needed further therapy. K no
longer took her ADHD medication, but noted that when she took it, it helped her focus.
She could not focus as well when she was not on the medication. She did not recall the
medication making her feel sick. C was also interviewed, but she denied any
inappropriate sexual abuse and would advise Mother if it happened.
On November 3, 2025, Mother stated she refused to give ADHD medicine to K
because it caused her to lose weight and she had no energy. Mother insisted that K did
not have ADHD. Mother wanted B.W. to be reinterviewed because B.W. had admitted
that she had lied to the prior social worker about learning her sexualized behavior at
Boyfriend’s house; she learned it at her own mother’s house. Mother did not take Minors
out of therapy; they had completed their court-ordered therapy. She had been keeping
B.W. separated from Minors. They were on separate custody schedules. Mother insisted
that if B.W. was with Minors, they were supervised at all times.
Mother also provided additional information including photographs of A, K, and C
graduating from therapy. She also provided a medical report that Minors did not have
any communicable diseases. She also provided medical documentation that K did not
have ADHD.
Father reported he felt that K needed the ADHD medication on school days
because K stated it helped her focus. Father suffered from ADHD and thought that K
showed the same symptoms of ADHD. Father also provided documentation that showed
that K was helped by the ADHD medication. Father reported that he thought the b-3
12
allegation regarding Boyfriend’s alcohol use around Minors was true. Minors told Father
that Boyfriend was constantly drinking cocktails. Minors had reported once that
Boyfriend had been driving with a drink in his hand. He got pulled over and threw the
cup in the back with them. Father was concerned that Minors had not been truthful in
their interviews about Boyfriend drinking alcohol because Mother was present at the
interviews.
DPSS believed there was sufficient evidence to support all of the allegations in the
Petition. As for allegation b-1, Mother expressed several times that it was an
inconvenience to move around B.W. and Minors, and to provide supervision. Mother
blamed B.W. for what occurred in her home. She frequently requested that B.W. be
reinterviewed because B.W.’s mother was to blame for her behavior. Further, Father
reported to the family law court one year prior that B.W. and K had been engaged in
inappropriate behavior at Mother’s house and Mother had done nothing to stop future
incidents. The b-2 allegation should be found true. It was understandable that Mother
may have concerns about ADHD medication, but her reports of K losing weight and
having a fever were not supported by the documentation provided by Mother. Further, on
November 5, 2025, K reported that the medication helped her. K had denied feeling sick
or not being able to eat while on the medication. Father’s girlfriend had reported that K’s
behavior improved when she was on the medication. There was no support in the
documentation that K had lost weight while taking the ADHD medication. On November
12, 2024, it was reported by K’s school that she was having trouble concentrating. K
13
requested that she be able to take her ADHD medication, but Mother did not want her to
take it.
The b-3 allegation was supported by evidence that Minors initially reported
Boyfriend drank alcohol daily. He also would drink while driving. Minors later denied
that Boyfriend drank alcohol in the home, but Mother was present at their interviews.
Boyfriend was also present for part of the interviews.
Mother believed changing the times of custody of Minors and B.W. had addressed
the concerns of DPSS. Mother felt there was no improper supervision and that B.W.
should be interviewed “so that the truth could come out.” Mother was concerned that
Father and his girlfriend talked negatively about her in front of Minors.
Father felt that Minors were stressed from going back and forth to the two houses.
In his home, Minors were free to express their emotions. Minors struggled when they
were living with Boyfriend. Father also indicated that Minors stated Boyfriend had been
kinder since DPSS became involved, but they feared he would be rude to them again if
DPSS were not involved. Minors were “people pleasers” who did not want to upset
Mother or Boyfriend. Father reported on November 7, 2025, that he was told by Minors
that B.W. attended A’s dance performance despite the children not being allowed
together. Minors were struggling in school due to the stress of everything. Father
wanted K to be enrolled in therapy. He wanted Minors in his care during the school week
so that whatever was happening at Mother’s home would not impact their schoolwork.
DPSS reported that Mother changing custody of B.W. to keep her separate from
Minors “seems to have resolved the concerns [of] further incidents of inappropriate
14
touching; however, this is not the only concern.” DPSS was concerned there was an
“ongoing family law battle” between Parents. Father still expressed concern about
Minors being supervised in Mother’s home, and Mother was concerned about negative
things said about her in Father’s home. DPSS believed the family could benefit from
ongoing monitoring to ensure the safety of Minors and that they are being appropriately
supervised in both homes. DPSS was recommending family maintenance, which would
include counseling and parenting education. Further, K should undergo a psychological
and medical evaluation to address whether she suffered from ADHD and should take
medication.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was set contested for December 15, 2025.
DPSS was to investigate if Mother was complying with keeping Minors and B.W. apart.
An addendum report was filed on December 10, 2025, with changes to the
recommendations. DPSS was requesting that, in lieu of dependency, Father be granted
sole legal and physical custody of Minors, and Mother be granted visitation every other
weekend. Visitation with Mother would not occur when B.W. was also in Mother’s
home.
Father reported that K had been stressed out and it would be better for her to
remain at his house. He also provided text messages from 2023 where Mother discussed
inappropriate touching amongst the children. Father provided a photograph taken on
October 24, 2025, of Minors and B.W. at A’s dance recital. Mother had been showing
videos and photographs to K to show that she had been sick when she was taking the
ADHD medication. K was now claiming she did not want to take the medication.
15
DPSS visited Father’s home on December 1, 2025. A reported she had a good
Thanksgiving break and never saw B.W. at Mother’s home while they were there for
Thanksgiving. She felt safe in both houses. Father’s girlfriend reported that at the dance
recital, Mother had called B.W. over to speak with A. Father and his girlfriend also
reported that A had cried prior to school that day and they believed it was due to stress.
They also believed that Mother was focused on B.W. being the one to blame rather than
taking accountability and increasing supervision. They also expressed concern for the
overall safety of Minors in Mother’s care, referencing several prior instances where
Minors did not wear helmets while riding bikes or life jackets at the rivers. It was not
clear when these events occurred.
Father had stopped taking his ADHD medication, telling K that if she could not
take her medication, he would also stop. They would learn to cope together. K was
interviewed. She appeared to have a tic, which caused her to repeatedly raise her
eyebrows and sometimes her eyebrows would twitch. K felt safe in both homes.
K wanted to be back on her medication. K had never felt sick while taking her
medication; she acknowledged Mother showing her videos and photographs of her being
sick. She denied seeing B.W. recently, and Boyfriend had stopped drinking once DPSS
got involved. C was also briefly interviewed. She saw B.W. at school. She felt safe in
both homes.
Mother repeatedly contacted DPSS in regard to K being evaluated by a medical
doctor selected by DPSS to determine if she had ADHD. K was subjected to a “Child
Needs and Strength Assessment,” called a CANS assessment. The evaluator stated that it
16
appeared K felt pressure not to tell the truth, but opened-up during the session. K
reported concerns about Boyfriend. After the assessment, Mother expressed concern that
she had not been allowed to be present and was not notified prior to the assessment. She
was concerned that Father was taking Minors to appointments without her knowledge or
consent. Father notified DPSS that A and C also completed CANS assessments and K
was set for a medical evaluation on January 13, 2026. Mother was advised and she was
upset she had not been advised beforehand about the CANS assessments of A and C.
Mother also made an appointment for K to see her clinician, but was advised by DPSS
that K was going to be seen by a provider approved by DPSS.
On December 8, 2025, a new referral was received by DPSS for Mother and
Boyfriend. It had been reported by K that Boyfriend screamed at her to finish her food,
called her names and made fun of her tics. He called her a “retard.” One time K fell and
Boyfriend laughed at her. Boyfriend would tell Minors, “fuck around and find out.” K
also reported being spanked by Boyfriend.
A social worker went to Minors’ school to speak with them. K reported that she
could not stop moving her eyebrows and fidgeting. Boyfriend made fun of her by
copying her facial movements, which made her feel sad. Mother had been present and
did nothing to stop him. Mother told K she was going to tape her eyebrows to stop them
from moving, which also made K sad. Boyfriend yelled at her and C. C reported that she
had seen Mother hold K’s eyebrows to stop them from moving. This made C sad. C said
that Boyfriend yelled at her if she did not eat her food fast enough. Mother would be
present and not say anything. She wished that Mother and Boyfriend were not so mean.
17
Mother denied that K had facial tics. She also denied telling K she was going to
tape her eyebrows down. Mother also denied that Boyfriend made fun of K and denied
that he would drink and drive. Boyfriend never yelled at Minors. Boyfriend also denied
that K had facial tics and insisted he never teased her. Boyfriend denied that he yelled at
Minors and he would never drink and drive.
DPSS recommended that the case be closed with family law orders in favor of
custody to Father, and visitation every other weekend for Mother. Attached to the
addendum report were text messages between Parents starting in March 2022. They
discussed giving K her medication; Mother admitted at times not giving her the
medication. There were texts in May 2023 about B.W. and K touching each other. On
December 15 the jurisdiction/disposition hearing was continued to February 3, 2026.
DPSS filed another addendum report on January 29, 2026, before the continued
hearing. It continued to recommend closing the case with sole legal and physical custody
to Father and visitation for Mother every other weekend. On December 11, 2025, DPSS
had received another referral for Mother and Boyfriend reported by A. A reported that
Boyfriend was mean to her, K and C. He yelled at them and called them “retards.”
During the reporting period, Father spoke with a social worker expressing that A
appeared to be suffering from stress due to the whole situation. On Christmas Day, he
dropped A off at Mother’s house. A called him sobbing and said that she missed Father.
Mother allowed A to return to Father’s care. On January 15, 2026, Father texted DPSS
that K had been diagnosed with a tic disorder.
18
Minors were interviewed again on January 20, 2026. K felt safe in both homes.
K had been meeting with a therapist and liked attending. She had recently had a doctor’s
appointment and hoped she could return to taking her medication. A also felt safe in both
homes. She liked seeing her therapist. She went back to Father’s home on Christmas
Day because she missed him. C felt safe in both homes and liked her therapist.
Boyfriend still yelled at her if she did not eat her food fast enough. On January 28, 2026,
the medical clinic where K was seen confirmed she had been diagnosed with a “Motor
Tic Disorder,” but she was still being evaluated for ADHD. Father complained to DPSS
that he picked up Minors at school and at the same time Mother was picking up B.W.
Father reminded Mother that Minors were not to be around B.W., even at pick up from
school.
C. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION HEARING AND EXIT ORDER
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on February 3, 2026, DPSS submitted
on all of their reports. Minors’ counsel argued there was sufficient evidence to support
the three allegations in the Petition. Minors’ counsel objected to the case being
terminated as Minors would benefit from further DPSS involvement. Minors’ counsel
expressed her belief the issues that brought the family to the attention of the court and
DPSS had not been resolved. She expressed concern that Minors were being coached.
One of the Minors advised counsel that Boyfriend was still spanking her. Further, there
were two new referrals involving Boyfriend. K was still being assessed for ADHD, and
there was concern that Boyfriend drove Minors while he was drinking. Further, Mother’s
agreement to separate B.W. from Minors was a “relatively new arrangement.” Minors’
19
counsel thought it would be helpful for Parents to attend co-parenting classes. Further,
DPSS could continue to monitor that B.W. was not having contact with Minors. Minors
expressed to counsel they wanted to spend equal time with their parents. Minors’ counsel
felt it was best to continue the case and eventually return to the original alternate week
and weekend custody arrangement.
Mother’s counsel stated that Mother did not want to lose custodial time with
Minors. She wanted the case dismissed without any findings and the original custody
arrangement be imposed. Mother’s counsel argued B.W. was no longer living with
Minors so the b-1 allegation was not true. As for the b-2 allegation, Mother had been
cooperative in getting K assessed for her ADHD. She would follow any
recommendations from an independent doctor. There was no evidence of the b-3
allegation as to the current risk of Boyfriend drinking alcohol and driving. Father’s
counsel agreed with the DPSS recommendations.
DPSS argued that Mother showed a failure to protect, as alleged in b-1, not only in
regard to the sexualized behaviors but in supervising Minors. Mother had known about
the sexualized behavior, but allowed K and B.W. to share a room. She blamed B.W. for
the incidents. Mother also was reluctant to have Minors involved in additional therapy.
Mother did not protect Minors from Boyfriend. Boyfriend yelled at Minors and Mother
did not intervene. Mother also did not stop Boyfriend teasing K about her tics. Further,
the b-2 and b-3 allegations were supported by the evidence. DPSS believed that since
Father was a protective parent, it was not necessary to keep the matter open. Father put
the priorities of Minors above all despite the ongoing issues with Mother.
20
The juvenile court stated it had read the reports submitted by DPSS and they were
accepted into evidence. The juvenile court first noted that the parties were preoccupied
with determining who was at fault for the sexual misconduct or what first caused it to
occur. The juvenile court found it “irrelevant” for purposes of the proceedings. The
juvenile court was not going to blame children for their misconduct. It was the juvenile
court’s job to ensure the safety of the children to get appropriate treatment and therapy.
DPSS had initially been concerned that Mother was not adequately keeping Minors and
B.W. apart. Once the case was filed, “partially because of a lack of co-parenting,” there
have been a “whole host of other issues” that had arisen. The juvenile court noted there
were concerns about whether Minors were having their medical needs met and that the
children were being mocked or being yelled at. The juvenile court noted there had been
no allegation in the Petition about K being mocked about her tic disorder or Minors being
yelled at by Boyfriend and would not consider these issues.
The juvenile court noted that the real issue before it was whether Minors were
“currently at risk of physical harm or some kind of serious emotional harm.” The
juvenile court noted that there were no perfect parents, and ADHD was difficult to
diagnose and parents could disagree as to the appropriate treatment. The juvenile court
wanted to ensure Minors were safe and their basic needs were being met.
The juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true by a preponderance of
the evidence. The juvenile court ordered the case terminated with physical and legal
custody being awarded to Parents, with the primary household being Father’s home.
Mother would have custody of Minors only every other weekend from Friday afternoon
21
until Monday morning. B.W. and Boyfriend were not to be present during her custody
time. The juvenile court orders would be filed in the family law court. The juvenile
court noted that if circumstances changed, either party could return to the family law
court to seek a modification. The juvenile court encouraged both parties to attend co-
parenting courses. The juvenile court stated it understood that Minors’ counsel would
prefer continued supervision, but the court did not have “endless resources to assist
parents and parties,” and this was not the “type of matter” to continue supervision.
Mother filed an appeal from the “Custody Order—Juvenile—Final Judgment” (all
caps and boldface omitted) filed on March 3, 2026, and the findings at the February 3,
2026, hearing.
DISCUSSION
A. JURISDICTION FINDINGS
Mother essentially contends the Petition should have been dismissed by the
juvenile court because the jurisdictional findings under section 300, specifically the
allegations under b-1, b-2 and b-3, were not supported by substantial evidence.
“[S]ection 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes dependency jurisdiction where ‘[t]he
child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical
harm or illness, as a result of ... [¶] ... [¶] ... [t]he inability of the parent or guardian to
provide regular care for the child.... Jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b),
requires proof of (1) the specified parental condition or conduct (2) that has caused
(3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In
22
re L.W. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1012, 1019; see also In re Cole L. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th
591, 601.)
The burden of proof at the jurisdictional hearing is a preponderance of the
evidence. (In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 876; In re B.H. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 469,
479-480.) “ ‘ “We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for sufficiency of
the evidence. [Citations.] We review the record to determine whether there is any
substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusions, and we resolve all
conflicts and make all reasonable inferences from the evidence to uphold the court’s
orders, if possible. [Citation.] ‘However, substantial evidence is not synonymous with
any evidence. [Citations.] A decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not
be affirmed on appeal. [Citation.] Furthermore, “[w]hile substantial evidence may
consist of inferences, such inferences must be ‘a product of logic and reason’ and ‘must
rest on the evidence’ [citation]; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or
conjecture cannot support a finding [citations].” [Citation.] “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.” ’ ” ’ ” (In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1046.)
“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
23
statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the b-1 allegation under
section 300 in the Petition. As stated, the allegation provided, “[M]other demonstrates
limited ability to protect the children, in that she allows the children to sleep in the same
room, despite having knowledge of the children’s sexualized behaviors towards each
other. Further, [M]other minimizes the children’s behaviors and she refuses to separate
the children from sleeping in the same room, citing it as an inconvenience; such actions
place the children at great risk of physical and emotional harm.”
Mother and Minors came to the attention of DPSS based on K reporting B.W. was
acting “weird again.” K reported that B.W. had grabbed her hand and put it on B.W.’s
vagina. B.W. also had K and C play Truth or Dare with her and asked them to do
sexually inappropriate things. K had initially not told Mother and Boyfriend, as they
would call her a liar or B.W. would deny the accusations. Several years prior, the same
things had occurred, and Mother separated Minors from B.W. for one year. However,
after one year, she put them all back in the same bedroom together and the same things
occurred. After this second incident, Mother initially refused to separate K, C, and B.W.,
because A had been given her own room and Mother did not think it was fair to punish A,
but eventually relented and separated Minors from B.W. Mother complained about
having to supervise B.W., K, and C while they played together. C reported that even
after having separate rooms, she grabbed B.W.’s buttocks. Further, K, C, and B.W. were
playing in the garage, and B.W. unbuttoned her pants so that they would fall down when
24
she jumped up and down. Mother continued to ask DPSS to interview B.W. as Mother
blamed her for the sexually inappropriate behavior, and even wanted B.W. to take a lie
detector test. DPSS had to repeatedly advise Mother that it was important to stop the
inappropriate behavior, and not to be concerned with who was responsible, as they are all
children.
The juvenile court and DPSS had to step in and require that B.W.’s custody
arrangement be changed in order to keep her from engaging in inappropriate sexual
behaviors with Minors. DPSS remarked that since B.W. had been removed, it appeared
the issue had been resolved, but it remained concerned about Mother’s ability to
supervise. DPSS first recommended joint custody and the same alternating week and
weekend schedule, and continued supervision with the family on a family maintenance
plan. However, after this recommendation, it performed further investigation, and it
changed the recommendation to custody for Father, and that Mother was to have Minors
in her care every other weekend. This appears to be as a result of B.W. being with
Minors at A’s dance recital despite the juvenile court order to keep B.W. and Minors
from seeing each other.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, DPSS reported that it was still concerned
about Mother’s ability to supervise Minors and B.W. It recommended sole legal and
physical custody be with Father, and that visits between Mother and Minors not include
Boyfriend. The juvenile court expressed that it was concerned with whether Minors were
at risk of emotional or physical harm, and it found that the allegations were supported by
25
the evidence presented by DPSS. It also was concerned that Boyfriend not be present
during Minors time with Mother.
The juvenile court properly determined that the best way to protect Minors was to
have them in the custody of Father. He was able to provide a protective environment,
and Minors would still have contact with Mother. The juvenile court properly found the
b-1 allegation true by a preponderance of the evidence.
The b-2 allegation alleged that Mother neglected the mental health needs of
Minors as she failed to obtain ongoing mental health counseling for Minors and did not
give K her ADHD medication. DPSS remained concerned that Mother was minimizing
or neglecting the medical needs of Minors. Minors stated that they liked participating in
therapy, but Mother was reluctant to send them to therapy. A suffered stress from the
ongoing family issues and liked to go to therapy. C and K both liked going to therapy,
and they both had been involved in the sexually inappropriate behavior with B.W.
Mother did not believe that Minors needed continued therapy, but it did appear that it was
helpful. Further, Mother had teased K about her tic disorder, telling her she was going to
tape her eyebrows open. Mother also initially refused to give K her ADHD medication
even though K expressed that it helped her. Mother showed K videos and photographs of
K on the medication, claiming that K was always sick when she took the medication.
K could not recall being sick. The juvenile court properly found the allegation in b-2 true
by a preponderance of the evidence.
The b-3 allegation was that Mother failed to protect Minors by allowing Boyfriend
to supervise Minors while under the influence of alcohol and by drinking in the car while
26
Minors were present. Minors initially reported that Boyfriend was mean and drank
alcohol in the car. In January 2024, it was reported that Boyfriend was drunk driving
with Minors in the car. Minors reported that Boyfriend drank cocktails around them.
The only time that Minors denied that Boyfriend drank alcohol around them was during
interviews when Mother was present. Minors’ counsel believed Minors were being
coached. The juvenile court could reasonably be concerned that Boyfriend was not
properly supervising Minors based on his alcohol use and properly found the b-3
allegation true. The allegations in the Petition were supported by the evidence.
B. EXIT ORDER
Mother contends the exit order made by the juvenile court giving her custody of
Minors only every other weekend was an abuse of discretion and should be reversed as it
was not in the best interests of Minors.
“Section 362.4 authorizes a juvenile court to issue exit orders for visitation and
custody when terminating dependency jurisdiction, and those orders remain in place even
after jurisdiction is terminated.” (In re R.F. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 459, 473.) Section
362.4, subdivision (a) states: “If the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a
minor who has been adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court …, the juvenile
court on its own motion, may issue ... an order determining the custody of, or visitation
with, the child.” Hence, “[w]hen the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a
dependent child, section 362.4 authorizes it to make custody and visitation orders that
will be transferred to an existing family court file and remain in effect until modified or
terminated by the superior court.’ ” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203.)
27
“Section 362.4 does not require a finding of detriment under any circumstances; as
a result, courts have applied the best interest standard in determining appropriate custody
and visitation exit orders at this stage.” (In re J.M.. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 113-114;
see also In re C.M. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 101, 109 [“When a juvenile court makes
custody and visitation orders, it does so ... guided by the totality of the circumstances in
issuing orders that are in the child’s best interests”].) “ ‘[T]he juvenile court has broad
discretion to make custody [and visitation] orders when it terminates jurisdiction in a
dependency case [citation].’ [Citation.] We review the juvenile court’s exit orders for an
abuse of that discretion.” (J.M., at pp. 112-113.)
It was undisputed that there were no concerns while Minors were in the custody of
Father other than Mother complaining that Father was talking poorly about her. Father
properly supervised Minors and was open to therapy for Minors and any other care they
needed. On the other hand, Minors expressed concerns when they were in the home of
Mother. Boyfriend yelled at and teased Minors, and the supervision by Mother was
lacking in that she did not step in to protect Minors. Mother had only been keeping B.W.
and Minors apart for a few months by the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, and
it was reasonable for the juvenile court to be concerned with Minors spending every week
with Mother. Mother continued to push back on therapy for Minors and medication for
K. Further, since Mother lived with Boyfriend, and it was in the best interests of Minors
not to be in the presence of Boyfriend when with Mother, it was unrealistic to award
alternating weeks and weekends to Mother, as it does not seem that Boyfriend could be
out of the home all that time. Finally, Mother can petition the family law court to change
28
the custody order any time she believes the circumstances have changed. (§ 302, subd.
(d); Heidi S. v. David H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1163.) The juvenile court did not
abuse its discretion in making the custody and visitation exit order.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders made at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing are
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
29