Filed 8/26/26 In re J.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 J.A. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E088257
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2600084)
v. OPINION
G.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge.
Affirmed.
Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell and Larisa R-McKenna, Deputy
County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant G.A. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional finding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300. Father is
challenging only his waiver of his right to a contested jurisdictional hearing, asserting
that his waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father is married to C.A. (Mother), and they are the parents of four minor
children: daughter Jay.A. (born November 2009); daughter Gen.A. (born October 2011);
son Ger.A. (born April 2014); and son Jer.A. (born May 2016).
In February 2026, plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public
Social Services (DPSS) received an immediate response referral after Mother called the
police reporting that Father hit Jay.A. with a belt five times and punched her with a
closed fist three times. When describing the incident to DPSS, Mother stated that Father
drank an unknown amount of a 40-ounce beer, and she heard Father yell at Jer.A. to put
his phone away. Mother told Jay.A. to record Father. Mother then saw Father hitting
Jay.A. on the buttocks with a belt three or four times, and Mother intervened to stop
Father. Father left the house after Mother called the police. Mother felt that Father’s
drinking had made him lose control. Mother showed photographs to DPSS of bruises on
Jay.A.’s thigh, stomach area, and hand.
Mother stated that she does not use corporal punishment and does not believe in
physical discipline, but Father spanks the children with a belt, and she has had to
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
specified otherwise.
2
intervene several times to stop him. She reported that Father had once pushed her to the
ground during an argument, and that Father had punched holes in the walls when she
tried to stop him from spanking the children.
In Jay.A.’s initial interview with DPSS, she stated that Father has always used a
belt to discipline the children, that she could not remember how many times Father would
hit her during each episode, and that it was “an 8½ to a 9” on a pain scale of 10. She was
too emotional to continue the interview to discuss the February 2026 incident
specifically.
Father admitted to DPSS that he would spank the children with a belt if they were
“acting out or talking back.” He also admitted that he had been drinking “a little” before
the February 2026 incident. He claimed that the children had ignored his direction to put
their phones away so he threatened to hit them but was not going to do it. When he saw
Jay.A. recording him, it made him angry, so he hit her; she blocked him, and they both
fell to the ground. He stated he did not recall otherwise spanking, touching, or hitting
Jay.A., and she may have marks and bruises on her body from when they fell.
DPSS filed a section 300 petition on March 3, 2026, with respect to all four
children. The children were removed from Father’s custody but remained in Mother’s
care and custody. The petition alleged that Jay.A. was subject to the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), and that the other three
3
children were subject to jurisdiction pursuant to subdivisions (b)(1) and (j).2 As relevant
to this appeal, the petition alleged that Father hit and punched Jay.A., that he was
intoxicated when he did so, that he engages in excessive and inappropriate discipline of
the children including but not limited to hitting the children with a belt, that he engaged
in acts of domestic violence with Mother in the presence of the children, that he abuses
alcohol rendering him incapable of providing appropriate care and supervision for the
children, and that the other children were at risk of suffering the same abuse suffered by
Jay.A.
At the detention hearing on March 4, 2026, the juvenile court ordered the children
detained as to Father and that they were to remain in Mother’s custody. Father was
granted supervised visitation with the children two times a week for one hour each visit.
As set forth in DPSS’s April 7, 2026, Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, Jay.A. was
interviewed by DPSS again. She did not wish to speak about the February 2026 incident
but stated that Father normally hits her and her siblings about once a month with a belt,
leaving marks and bruises. She also reported that although Father does not drink often,
when he does, it is excessive, and she would not feel safe with Father returning home
unless he was sober.
2 Section 300, subdivision (a), provides that a child is subject to the juvenile
court’s jurisdiction where the child has suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering
serious physical harm that is inflicted nonaccidentally by the child’s parent. Subdivision
(b)(1) provides that a child is subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction where a child has
suffered or is at risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of the parent’s failure
or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child. Subdivision (j) provides that a
child is subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction where the child’s sibling has been
abused or neglected, and there is substantial risk the child will be abused or neglected.
4
Gen.A. confirmed that Father had hit Jay.A. with a belt several times because she
was recording him. Gen.A. stated that this is not Father’s usual form of discipline but
that he had hit Jay.A. with a belt on two separate occasions, leaving marks or bruises.
Gen.A. felt that Jay.A. was disciplined with corporal punishment, whereas she and her
younger siblings were not, because Jay.A. is the most vocal child and is protective of her
younger siblings. She stated that Father was drunk each time that he used physical
discipline.
Ger.A. also stated that Father hit Jay.A. with a belt because she was recording
him. He said that Father would become angry over small things when he was drinking.
He stated that Father had not hit him or his siblings with a belt in almost a year. Ger.A.
said he believed Father only hit Jay.A. because he was drunk, and that when he drinks
“he does not have a limit.”
Jer.A. stated he was not in the room during the February 2026 incident. He said
that Father drinks beer and he feels unsafe when Father is drinking.
Father disclosed that he has a criminal history, including a 2022 DUI. He also
stated that he is subject to a court order to complete a DUI program for repeat offenders,
and requested that this program count as his substance abuse services with DPSS.
Prior to the April 2026 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Father completed and
signed Form JV-190, “Waiver of Rights—Juvenile Dependency” (JV-190). On the JV-
190, Father checked the box for “I wish to … [¶] … [¶] submit the petition on the basis of
the social worker’s or probation officer’s report and other documents, if any.” Father
also initialed next to all of the waivers of rights, reflecting that he was waiving his right
5
to a trial or hearing, the right to see and hear witnesses who testify, the right to cross-
examine witnesses, the right to testify on his own behalf and present witnesses, the right
to compel witnesses to come to court and produce evidence, and any privilege against
self-incrimination. Father executed the JV-190, and his counsel executed the declaration
of attorney portion of the form stating that he explained to his client the rights and
consequences of submitting the petition on the report.
On the record at the April 16, 2026, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile
court asked Father if he went over the JV-190 with his counsel and understood the
document before he signed it, and Father answered affirmatively to both questions. The
court asked Father if he had any questions, and Father responded, “What’s happening
today? Sorry about that. No.”
The juvenile court summarized the general substance of the JV-190. The court
also stated to Father, “It’s my understanding [DPSS] is requesting that you receive what’s
called reunification services which would allow you to complete a case plan, and then
proceed towards having the case closed and the children back in your care.” The court
then gave Father’s counsel time to confidentially confer with Father, after which
conference Father confirmed with the court that he was comfortable with the court taking
his waiver of rights and moving forward. Father’s counsel joined in the waiver.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered the children detained from
Father, ordered that Mother retain physical custody of the children, and authorized DPSS
to liberalize the children’s visitation with Father, including unsupervised overnight time
if deemed appropriate.
6
Father timely filed his notice of appeal in pro. per. and described in the notice that
the order he was appealing was “waiver of rights—child/juvenile dependency.”
DISCUSSION
California Rule of Court, rule 5.682, subdivision (d),3 provides that a parent “may
elect to submit the jurisdictional determination to the court based on the information
provided to the court and choose whether to waive further jurisdictional hearing,” and
that if the parent submits to the jurisdictional determination in writing, the JV-190 must
be completed by the parent and submitted to the court.
After a parent submits on the jurisdictional determination, rule 5.682, subdivision
(e), provides that the court must then make certain findings, of which the one relevant to
this appeal is that “(3) The parent or guardian has knowingly and intelligently waived the
right to a trial on the issues by the court, the right to assert the privilege against self-
incrimination, and the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to
use the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses on the parent or
guardian’s behalf.”
“Because the due process rights protected by these rules implicate a parent’s
fundamental right to care for and have custody of his or her child, it is error of
constitutional dimension to accept a waiver of the right to a contested jurisdictional
hearing based only on counsel’s representations …. Where such error occurred, we may
3 All further citations to rules are to the California Rules of Court unless specified
otherwise.
7
affirm only if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re S.N. (2016) 2
Cal.App.5th 665, 672 (S.N.).)
Although Father raises various arguments, they all stem from his contention that
the juvenile court did not make a finding that his waiver was knowingly and intelligently
made as required by rule 5.682, subdivision (e)(3), and instead relied on counsel’s joining
in the waiver.
We first address the latter portion of Father’s argument. It is clear that the juvenile
court was not relying solely on counsel’s statement that he was joining in Father’s
waiver, but it was instead relying on the JV-190 executed by Father. The court
questioned Father directly about his execution of the JV-190 and his willingness to waive
his rights as set forth in the JV-190. (Cf. In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372,
1376-1377 [error to accept the mother’s submission on the petition where the court only
confirmed the submission with the mother’s counsel, and not the mother herself,
regarding advisement of rights and waiver of rights]; S.N., supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p.
670-671 [juvenile court erred where the mother’s counsel, but not the mother herself,
stated that the mother was willing to submit on jurisdiction].) The waiver here was given
by Father, not his counsel.
With respect to the juvenile court’s lack of findings, the minute order of the
jurisdictional hearing provides that Father “knowingly and intelligently waived the right
to a court trial by submitting Judicial Council form, Waiver of Rights-Juvenile
Dependency (form JV-190).” This finding is supported by the fact that Father submitted
a written waiver on the JV-190 form, which he had completed and executed with his
8
counsel. The court not only orally summarized the JV-190 for him but also provided him
with further opportunity to confer with his counsel regarding the form. After Father’s
further conference with his counsel, the juvenile court asked Father, “Are you still
comfortable with the Court taking your waiver of rights and moving forward?” Father
responded, “Yes, I am.”
There is no requirement in the California Rules of Court, or elsewhere, that
requires the juvenile court to make a finding on the record that a party has made a
knowing and intelligent waiver of the jurisdictional hearing.4 Instead, rule 5.682,
subdivision (e), sets forth that the requisite findings must be “noted in the order of the
court.” The minute order is the “order of the court.” We therefore hold that the findings
set forth in the minute order adequately satisfy the requirements of rule 5.682,
subdivision (e)(3), and there was a valid waiver of the right to a contested hearing by
Father.
We are not persuaded by Father’s claim that his question to the juvenile court of
“What’s happening today?” demonstrated a lack of knowing waiver of his rights. First,
his question came before the juvenile court summarized the substance of the JV-190 to
him, gave him time to confer with his counsel about the JV-190, and confirmed that he
was comfortable with waiving his rights. Secondly, leading up to Father’s question, the
4 In comparison, rule 5.682, subdivision (b), requires that the court “find and state
on the record that it is satisfied that the parent or guardian understands the nature of the
allegations and the direct consequences” where the parent wishes to admit to the
allegations set forth in the petition. Because Father did not admit to the allegations in the
petition, this subdivision does not apply to him.
9
juvenile court’s question to Mother and Father was, “Do either of you have any questions
that you want to ask me about what the form says or about what’s happening today?”
(Italics added.) After Mother responded that she did not, the court then asked Father if he
had any questions. Father responded with “What’s happening today? Sorry about that.
No.” Within that context, it appears that Father was likely echoing the court’s question
and then responding that he did not have any questions, rather than genuinely asking
what was happening.
We similarly do not agree with Father that his filing of this appeal is “[t]he most
compelling demonstration that [he] failed to understand the proceedings.” As DPSS
notes, one could also infer from Father’s appeal that he regrets his waiver, which is not a
basis for reversal.
Even if we were to find that the juvenile court erred in failing to make the requisite
findings set forth in rule 5.682, reversal would not be required because the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pp.
1377-1378.) The evidence overwhelmingly supports the court’s finding that the children
were subject to the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b),
and/or (j) such that there is not any reasonable likelihood that the court would have ruled
differently if Father went forward with a contested jurisdictional hearing.
The record reflects that Mother described Father hitting Jay.A. multiple times with
a belt and a closed fist during the February 2026 incident, and the photographs of
Jay.A.’s bruises corroborate Mother’s statements. Jay.A. confirmed that Father had on
multiple occasions struck her with a belt, which caused pain that was an “8½ or 9” out of
10
10. Two of the other children also confirmed that Father had struck Jay.A. or them with a
belt in the past. Mother and all four children described Father’s drinking as excessive,
oftentimes precipitating his hitting the children, and several of the children stated they
felt unsafe when Father was drinking. Although Father denied the specifics of the
February 2026 incident, he admitted to hitting Jay.A. on that occasion and to using a belt
to strike his children on prior occasions. Father admitted to a prior DUI and being
subject to a court-ordered DUI repeat offender program.
There is no indication from Father that he could have offered any favorable
witnesses or evidence at a contested jurisdictional hearing that would have led to a
different result by the juvenile court. We find that any error by the juvenile court in
failing to make the requisite findings set forth in rule 5.682 was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt because “[w]e are convinced that the outcome of the jurisdictional
hearing would have been the same regardless of the error” (S.N., supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at
p. 672.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
J.
RAPHAEL
J.
11
