section 300(b) jurisdictional finding in California

2022“There must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur. [Citation.]” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129 , 135-136, abrogated on other grounds by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628 .) Domestic violence in the household where a child is living may support the exercise of jurisdiction if there is evidence that the violence harmed the child or placed the child at risk of harm, and “the violence is ongoing or likely to continue.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 (Daisy H.).) Thus, courts have 14 upheld jurisdictional findings under sect

2016Section 300, subdivision (b) provides a basis for jurisdiction if the child “has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness caused by the parent’s inability to provide regular care for the child.” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135 .) A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a 4 ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 (E.B.) [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7 (O.B.); In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2025(In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 565 ; see also In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 778 [“the more severe the type of sibling abuse, the lower the required probability of the child’s experiencing such abuse to conclude the child is at a substantial risk of abuse or neglect”].) Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (j), we need not reach Mother’s arguments concerning the court’s other jurisdictional findings.

2025(I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773 .) Accordingly, we conclude substantial evidence supported the court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (d) as to G.H.

2026Domestic violence impacts children even if they are not the ones being physically abused, ‘because they see and hear the violence and the screaming.’ ” (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 134 , quoting Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 192 .) Courts have upheld jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b) where there is evidence of recurrent domestic violence in the home, even if the child was not always present to see it.

2024(In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 135-136 (T.V.).) We review the court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) for substantial evidence.

2022“There must be some reason beyond mere speculation to believe the alleged conduct will recur. [Citation.]” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129 , 135-136, abrogated on other grounds by In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628 .) Domestic violence in the household where a child is living may support the exercise of jurisdiction if there is evidence that the violence harmed the child or placed the child at risk of harm, and “the violence is ongoing or likely to continue.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 (Daisy H.).) Thus, courts have 14 upheld jurisdictional findings under sect

2021(Id. at pp. 1393–1394; accord In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828 , disapproved on another ground as stated in R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 628 .) “Physical violence between a child’s parents may support the exercise of jurisdiction under subdivision (b) [of section 300] but only if there is evidence that the violence is ongoing or likely to continue and it directly harmed the child physically or placed the child at risk of physical harm.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 (Daisy).) Further, “[e]vidence of past 30 conduct, without more, is insufficient to support a jur

2025(See In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634 , 638–639.) The court sustained the challenged jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b), which requires “ ‘evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. [Citation.]’ ” (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 829 .) This risk must exist as of the time of the jurisdictional hearing (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547 ), but may be based on a parent’s past conduct, so long as the evidence suggests that past conduct is likely to reoccur or otherwise establishes a

2021(Id. at pp. 1393–1394; accord In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828 , disapproved on another ground as stated in R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 628 .) “Physical violence between a child’s parents may support the exercise of jurisdiction under subdivision (b) [of section 300] but only if there is evidence that the violence is ongoing or likely to continue and it directly harmed the child physically or placed the child at risk of physical harm.” (In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717 (Daisy).) Further, “[e]vidence of past 30 conduct, without more, is insufficient to support a jur

2023(In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438 .) Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes dependency jurisdiction over a child where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical 6 We agree that mother’s appeal is justiciable. 20 harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Three elements are often cited as necessary for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1): “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in

2023Applicable law Section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), authorizes dependency jurisdiction over a child where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of [his or her] parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” Three elements are often cited as necessary for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1): “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the 1

2026The failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (See § 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) “Exposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis of a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)” because “ ‘ “[d]omestic violence in the same household where children are living . . . is a failure to protect [the children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it.” [Citation.]’ . . . [Citation.]” (See In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941 (R.C.).) “We review the juvenile c

2026The failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (See § 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) “Exposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis of a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)” because “ ‘ “[d]omestic violence in the same household where children are living . . . is a failure to protect [the children] from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it.” [Citation.]’ . . . [Citation.]” (See In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941 (R.C.).) “We review the juvenile c

2016(In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194-196 (Heather A.).) A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires substantial evidence of: (1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness to the child or a substantial risk of such harm or illness.

2015A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires: ‘ “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] The third element ‘effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future . . . .’ [Citation.]” (In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135 .) “[D]omestic violence in the same household where children are living

2025(I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1493, 1495; cf. D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 286 [discretionary review may be appropriate where parent challenges only one jurisdictional finding that involves “particularly severe conduct”].) We decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of father’s arguments regarding the court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (a).

2023(In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266 , 276–278.) An appeal from a jurisdictional finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 is not justiciable where “no effective relief could be granted . . . , as jurisdiction would be established regardless of the appellate court’s conclusions with respect to any such [challenged] jurisdictional grounds.” (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 329 ; In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490 .) Father does not challenge the jurisdictional finding that he failed to protect J.H. from Mother’s substance abuse.

2021(In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 289 ; In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452 .) Thus, mother’s challenge to the jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b), as to 4 While the Department vaguely alluded to such defects in its conclusory, eight-page motion to dismiss, the first time the Department clearly articulated its arguments on these threshold issues was in its respondent’s brief. 10 Jared is not justiciable because, no matter what we decide on this appeal regarding that basis, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction will remain valid by virtue of the finding under sect

2021“Exposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis of a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).” (In re 26 R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941 .) Domestic violence “may support the exercise of jurisdiction only if there is evidence that the violence harmed the children or placed them at risk of harm, and ‘the violence is ongoing or likely to continue.’” (In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1453 .) However, a parent’s “‘“[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions” if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.’” (In re Christopher R. (2014) 2

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 (E.B.) [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7 (O.B.); In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2023(In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 438 .) Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes dependency jurisdiction over a child where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical 6 We agree that mother’s appeal is justiciable. 20 harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Three elements are often cited as necessary for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1): “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in

2023Applicable law Section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A), authorizes dependency jurisdiction over a child where “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] [t]he failure or inability of [his or her] parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect the child.” Three elements are often cited as necessary for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1): “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the 1

2014Relying, inter alia, on the decision in In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (J.N.), appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)2 that mother and father posed a substantial risk of harm to B.D. based on their history of alcohol abuse and an incident during which mother drove under the influence, with B.D. in the car, and collided with a parked police car.

2014The juvenile court also reasonably could find that Father failed to protect Matthew from a substantial risk of serious harm by allowing unsecured firearms and ammunition to be kept in an area of the home that was easily accessible to Matthew. 9 Citing In re J.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 , Father argues that a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) may not be based on a single episode of endangering conduct in the absence of evidence that such conduct is likely to reoccur.

2025(See In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634 , 638–639.) The court sustained the challenged jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b), which requires “ ‘evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. [Citation.]’ ” (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 829 .) This risk must exist as of the time of the jurisdictional hearing (In re Katrina C. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 540, 547 ), but may be based on a parent’s past conduct, so long as the evidence suggests that past conduct is likely to reoccur or otherwise establishes a

2024(See In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 641 [“Where parental discipline exceeds [reasonable] limits, juvenile 5 The juvenile court expressly amended the allegations in the dependency petition to reflect that Edward’s injuries were the result of “excessive discipline” rather than physical abuse. 7 courts have not hesitated to uphold the assertion of dependency jurisdiction”].) Father does not argue that hitting Edward in the head with a metal water bottle constituted reasonable discipline, but maintains that the incident was not severe enough to warrant an adverse jurisdictional finding und

2025As relevant here, section 300(b)(1) provides that a child may come within the court’s jurisdiction if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of” a 18 parent’s failure or inability “to adequately supervise or protect the child” or the parent’s inability “to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse.” (§ 300(b)(1)(A), (D).) A jurisdictional finding under section 300(b)(1) requires that CFS prove by a preponderance of the evid

2025Substance abuse may serve as a basis for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(D), which authorizes the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over a child when “the child has suffered serious physical harm or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm ‘by the inability of the parent . . . to provide regular care for the child due to the parent’s . . . substance abuse.’” (In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720, 724 .) “In short, there are three elements for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), namely, (1) neglectful con

2020(See In re Rebecca C. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 [“evidence of life-impacting effects of drug use” may support finding of substance abuse problem justifying juvenile court’s intervention].) While Mother denied recent use of marijuana at the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court was free to disbelieve her testimony.9 9 Mother cites the holding of In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754 , that a finding of substance abuse under Section 300(b)(1) requires evidence that (1) the parent had been diagnosed as having a substance abuse problem by a medical professional or (2) the parent has a

2020However, we generally will exercise our discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding when the finding “(1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) ‘could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction’ [citation].” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754 , 762–763.) Here, the parents contend that if we find substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s

2016(See, e.g., In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397 [dependency jurisdiction may be based on the actions of one parent alone]; In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 , 1491–1492.) We exercise our discretion to review the merits of father’s arguments. 7 conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “‘serious physical harm or illness’” to the child, or a “‘substantial risk’” of such harm or illness.

2013(In re Daisy H. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 713, 717, 718 .) In In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 398 , the appellate court held that one domestic violence incident occurring one year earlier, for which the father was arrested and which did not happen in view of the child, was insufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 (E.B.) [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7 (O.B.); In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2025While we recognize a juvenile court does not have to wait for serious damage to occur before intervening (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 ), there must be evidence showing there is a substantial risk of serious emotional damage to justify a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c), based on the possibility of future damage.

2022It is well established, however, that “[e]xposure to domestic violence may serve as the basis of a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b).” (In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 941 .) “The court need not wait until the child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child,” and the court “may consider past events in deciding whether a child presently needs the court’s protection.” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 .) At the time of the jurisdiction hearing, the evidence showed a lengthy history of domestic viol

2024Finally, we note that, “[w]hen a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 .) Accordingly, even though there was insufficient evidence to support findings under section 300, 15 subdivision (b), the court properly took jurisdiction of the child, since t

2022In making that determination, the reviewing court reviews the record in the light most favorable to the challenged order, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of that order, and giving the evidence reasonable inferences.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438 , 450-451 (Alexis E.).) “Evidence of past conduct, without more, is insufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300.

2025Sufficiency of the evidence supporting jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) A. Governing law Section 300, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part, that a child comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if the “child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child 10 will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of . . . [¶] . . . [t]he failure or inability of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)(A).) A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) has three eleme

2024(In re Joaquin C. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 537, 561 .) “ ‘[T]he question under section 300 is whether the circumstances at the time of the hearing subject the minor to the defined risk of harm.’ ” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11 , 23.) A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (g) requires a showing that the child’s parent “has been incarcerated . . . and cannot arrange for the care of the child . . . .” (§ 300, subd. (g).) The statute applies if, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the parent has been incarcerated and the parent is, at that time, unable to arrange for

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 (E.B.) [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,

2023(See In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [“ ‘Past violent behavior in a relationship is “the best predictor of future violence.” Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7 (O.B.); In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419 [concluding even a single incident of domestic violence may be sufficient to support a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)], disapproved on another ground in R.T.,