Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealwilldomestic violencesustained
jurisdictionappealwilldomestic violence

Related Cases

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600
View Case »
Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027
View Case »
Hendrix v. Naphtal, 971 F.2d 398, 23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 145
View Case »
In re Carroll, 339 N.J.Super. 429, 772 A.2d 45
View Case »
Paciulan v. George, 229 F.3d 1226, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8430, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,231
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Nathan E., 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 380, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1732, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1669

Facts

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Nathan E. (then four), Andrew A. (then two), and Noah E. (then eight months old) from their parents, Monica A. (mother) and Joey E. (father) on March 30, 2020, after investigating a report of a February 2020 domestic violence incident. The DCFS petition alleged multiple counts under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, including serious physical harm and failure to protect. The juvenile court sustained some counts based on the parents’ history of domestic violence and ordered the children placed with their paternal grandparents.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Nathan E. (then four), Andrew A. (then two), and Noah E. (then eight months old) from their parents, Monica A. (mother) and Joey E. (father) on March 30, 2020, after investigating a report of a February 2020 domestic violence incident.

Issue

Whether the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to establish dependency jurisdiction over the children based on the domestic violence between the parents.

Whether the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to establish dependency jurisdiction over the children based on the domestic violence between the parents.

Rule

Juvenile court jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) exists when there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by the child's parent or guardian.

Juvenile court jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) exists when there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by the child's parent or guardian.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the history of domestic violence between the parents, which included multiple incidents and police involvement. The court found that the ongoing domestic violence created a substantial risk of harm to the children, even if the violence was not directly aimed at them. The evidence presented showed that the children were present during violent altercations, which justified the court's jurisdictional findings.

The court applied the rule by examining the history of domestic violence between the parents, which included multiple incidents and police involvement.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings of risk to the children due to the parents' domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders, concluding that substantial evidence supported the findings of risk to the children due to the parents' domestic violence.

Who won?

The County Department of Children and Family Services prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the jurisdiction and disposition orders.

The County Department of Children and Family Services prevailed in the case because the court found substantial evidence supporting the jurisdiction and disposition orders.

You must be