## Facts

- Mother and father married in 2006 and later separated in mid-2013; the children primarily lived with mother and visited father on weekends.
- In 2009, during an argument, father punched mother in the face once; the record reflected no other physical violence until 2014.
- On May 27, 2014, after father drank alcohol at a party during visitation, mother agreed to drive him to his residence with the children in the car.
- During the drive, father verbally abused mother, pinched her neck, and stated he did not care that the children were present.
- At the residence, father broke mother’s sunglasses, threw her belongings, took her purse and phone, and then punched and slapped her.
- Mother immediately left with the children, went directly to a police station, reported the assault, and obtained an emergency protective order covering herself and the children.
- The child welfare agency filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a) and § 300(b)(1), alleging the children were at risk from father’s violence and mother’s failure to protect by allowing father access despite his prior violence.
- The juvenile court sustained jurisdiction under § 300(a) and § 300(b)(1) as to both parents; father pleaded no contest, and mother contested the allegations.
- Mother appealed the jurisdictional findings against her; the agency argued the appeal was moot because jurisdiction would remain based on the findings against father.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal was moot where dependency jurisdiction would remain based on sustained findings against father, even if the findings against mother were reversed.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a) and § 300(b)(1) against mother based on the 2009 and 2014 incidents and the asserted risk at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the appeal was not moot and exercised discretion to reach the merits because findings against mother could have continuing adverse consequences in later proceedings.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under § 300(a) and § 300(b)(1) as to mother.
- The court held the record did not contain substantial evidence that mother failed to protect the children or that, at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, the children faced a current substantial risk of serious physical harm attributable to mother.
- The court emphasized that the domestic violence consisted of two physical assaults five years apart and that mother responded to the 2014 incident by promptly removing the children from danger, reporting to police, and obtaining a protective order.

## Legal Principles

- A dependency jurisdiction finding under § 300 requires substantial evidence of a current, defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing; past conduct is relevant only if it reasonably indicates the risk will continue.
- Jurisdiction may be based on one parent’s conduct, but an appellate challenge to findings against the other parent is not necessarily moot when the challenged findings may carry collateral consequences.
- Under § 300(b)(1), a finding that a parent failed to protect requires evidence of inadequate supervision or protection that creates a substantial risk; prompt and appropriate protective action weighs against such a finding.
- Isolated incidents of domestic violence, without evidence of ongoing violence or continued exposure, may be insufficient to support jurisdiction against a nonoffending parent who takes immediate steps to protect the children.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the jurisdictional findings against mother because the evidence showed two isolated incidents of domestic violence separated by years and demonstrated that mother acted immediately to protect the children after the 2014 assault, defeating a showing of current substantial risk under § 300(a) or § 300(b)(1) attributable to her.


In re Jonathan B., 235 Cal. App. 4th 115 (Ct. App. 2015)