## Facts

- DCFS detained Mariah (8) and Bryce (3) after their father reported Mariah disclosed sexual fondling by mother’s live-in boyfriend, Jason.
- Mariah reported that on two nights Jason entered her bedroom, lay next to her, and fondled her thigh near her crotch area; when she woke, he signaled her to be quiet.
- Mariah reported she told mother about Jason’s conduct; mother accused Mariah of lying and, according to father, warned Mariah not to tell anyone and threatened she would not see father again.
- Mariah and Bryce reported mother whipped them with a belt; Mariah testified mother hit her five times on the back with a belt, leaving a red line.
- Mother admitted using a belt on the children’s buttocks once, otherwise minimized discipline, denied Mariah reported Jason’s conduct, and claimed Mariah was a compulsive liar.
- After a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court found Mariah credible and mother not credible, sustained petition allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300, removed the children from mother under § 361(c), and placed them with father.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction under § 300 based on sexual abuse, mother’s failure to protect, and risk of serious physical harm from corporal punishment.
2. Whether the phrase “serious physical harm” in § 300(a) is unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported removal from mother and placement with father under § 361(c), including whether reasonable means short of removal could protect the children.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders.
- Substantial evidence supported findings that Mariah was sexually abused by a household member, mother failed to protect Mariah and thereby placed Bryce at risk, and mother’s belt-whipping created a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
- The term “serious physical harm” in § 300(a) was held sufficiently definite and not unconstitutionally vague.
- Clear and convincing evidence supported removal under § 361(c), and placement with the non-offending father was a reasonable, safe alternative.

## Legal Principles

- On appeal from dependency findings, reviewing courts apply the substantial-evidence standard, view the record in the light most favorable to the order, and do not reweigh credibility determinations.
- Dependency jurisdiction may be based on a substantial risk of harm; a child need not suffer actual injury before the juvenile court may intervene.
- Under § 300(b) and (j), a parent’s failure to protect one child from sexual abuse can support jurisdiction based on risk to a sibling living in the same household.
- “Serious physical harm” in § 300(a) has an ordinary, commonsense meaning that provides adequate notice and workable standards; constitutional vagueness is not established merely because the statute does not define the phrase.
- Removal under § 361(c) requires clear and convincing evidence of substantial danger and a lack of reasonable means short of removal to protect the child; failure to protect from sexual abuse and abusive corporal punishment can satisfy this standard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld jurisdiction and removal where the juvenile court credited the child’s reports of sexual abuse and belt-whipping, found mother failed to protect and discouraged disclosure, rejected a vagueness challenge to § 300(a)’s “serious physical harm” language, and concluded placement with the non-offending father protected the children.


In re Mariah T., 159 Cal. App. 4th 428, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)