A Dec. 2 appellate ruling removed the Riverside Superior Court’s jurisdiction of a child after overturning two findings from Riverside Superior Judge Michael Rushton.
The Riverside Superior Court had found the child under its jurisdiction because she was in an unsafe situation due to her mother’s boyfriend, which the court found the father failed to protect her from, according to the unpublished ruling. The child stayed in her father’s custody while the father went through court-ordered family maintenance services.
A gun and a hit
The 1-year-old child was living with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend of three years, according to the ruling. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services received a report April 3 that the boyfriend had hit the mother and fired a gun out of a car window while driving with multiple children in the car, according to the ruling.
The mother later told a social worker that the boyfriend had started the fight over the daughter not being his, and that the boyfriend left the mother and the children by the side of the road, according to the ruling. The mother also said she had tried to get a temporary restraining order against the boyfriend, but had not served it, and that there were two other domestic violence incidents from August, 2020, where the boyfriend tried to hang himself and another when he pushed her during an argument, according to the ruling.
To protect and support
Social Services filed a dependency petition, arguing that both of the daughter’s parents had failed to protect and failed to provide support to her. The father failed to protect his daughter because “he knew or reasonably should have known about the mother’s ongoing domestic violence with her boyfriend and continues to allow the mother to be the primary caretaker,” according to the petition as quoted in the ruling. The petition relied on Article Six of Juvenile Court Law, Section 300, subdivisions b and g.
The mother said the father would not have known about the domestic violence, that the first fight she told the father about was the April 3 fight, and that the father provided support in gifts and diapers to the daughter. The father also said he had no idea there were physical fights between the two of them, that he did not know the mother and boyfriend were still together, and that he thought the restraining order was due to the boyfriend still visiting uninvited after the breakup, not due to violence. The father said he also provided walkers, clothes and diapers to his daughter, according to the ruling.
Court investigations found the father’s home was appropriate with no safety concerns.
The court found both parents guilty of not providing support or protection, assumed jurisdiction over the child and placed her in the father’s custody.
Lack of knowledge
Although the panel found that In re Alysha S. (1996) set precedent that “a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both,” and that In re I.A. (2011) furthered precedent that the juvenile court will retain jurisdiction against both parents, the panel decided to exercise discretion to review since the ruling could “potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings,” in line with In re L.O. (2021) and In re M.W. (2015).
Social Services conceded there was insufficient evidence to prove the finding of inadequate care and support.
To prove inadequate protection, Social Services needed to prove neglectful conduct, failure or inability by the parent; causation; and serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to take jurisdiction over a child under Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), according to the panel.
The juvenile court had found the allegation of lack of protection true because the father “seemed like a guy who didn’t want to be involved, didn’t want to rock the boat, didn’t want to get in the middle of what was going on with mom’s relationship,” the panel quoted the court as saying.
The panel found that reasoning faulty because the father’s choice to give the mother privacy becomes a basis for jurisdiction if he knew or should have known the boyfriend was violent and dangerous, which the court could not find evidence of.
After learning about the April 3 fight, the father kept the daughter safe, and before that thought the mother and boyfriend were still separated, the panel said.
The panel affirmed the findings against the mother, but reversed the jurisdictional findings against the father.
Parties
Monica Vogelmann represented the father on appointment from the court.
Gregory Priamos, county counsel; and James Brown, Anna Marchand and Julie Jari, deputy county counsels, represented Riverside County Department of Public Social Services.
Associate Justice Marsha Slough of the Fourth District Court of Appeal wrote the opinion, which Associate Justices Art McKinster and Michael Raphael joined.
Riverside case no: SWJ2100171
Appellate case no: E076980
Read the ruling here.
