In re Juan P. CA2/3

Filed 10/16/15 In re Juan P. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re JUAN P., a Person Coming Under the B261829 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DK07238) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marquerite Downing, Judge. Reversed. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION Juan P., Sr., appeals from the jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court declaring his six-year-old son, Juan P., Jr., a dependent of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b).1 We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The child lives with mother and visits father every other weekend pursuant to a family law order giving the parents joint legal and physical custody. When mother picked the child up from father’s house on a Sunday in August 2014, she noted a red mark around the child’s neck. Asked what happened, father explained that the child was playing with the dog when the leash got caught around the child’s neck. The parents took the child to the hospital. Dr. Ludlow treated the child for a “ ‘neck abrasion’ ” and declared him to be “ ‘fine.’ ” Dr. Ludlow found the child did not appear ill and presented no acute distress. He had no peripheral edema or ecchyrmosis. His airway was normal and clear. In all respects, the child appeared normal, alert, and his mood and behavior were normal, “playful [and] happy.” Suspicious, mother filed a report with the Sheriff. She also obtained a restraining order to protect the child. However, until this incident, mother never had any concerns about child abuse or neglect in father’s home. The record contains numerous accounts of what caused the mark on the child’s neck. Mother reported overhearing the child telling mother’s attorney’s receptionist that father tied a belt around his neck and choked him. Mother also overheard the child telling his half sibling that father choked him with a belt because he ate Jello that he was not supposed to eat and did not listen. Mother claimed that the child was scared of father and did not want to visit him anymore. The child showed the social worker a belt and explained that “ ‘my dad ties the belt on my neck and pulled me back’ ” because “ ‘he got mad because I ate all the food.’ ” The child was always able to breathe. He told the social worker that he was scared of and angry at father and did not want to see father