In re A.R. CA2/2

Filed 11/5/15 In re A.R. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the B262434 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK08504)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TOMMY R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Connie Quinones, Judge. Reversed. Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor. ******

Virginia G. (mother) and Tommy R. (father) had a verbal fight, in the course of which mother threw a shoe and father broke a door handle; no one was struck and father left the apartment. The juvenile court found this to be an “isolated incident,” but went on to assert dependency jurisdiction over their eight-year-old daughter, A.R., because the incident had “stood out in” A.R.’s “mind.” Father argues that the juvenile court’s findings do not provide substantial evidence for its jurisdictional ruling. We agree, and reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.R. is mother and father’s only child, and was born in 2006. In April 2014, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral that A.R. might be a victim of emotional abuse. The Department investigated, learning that mother and father had had an altercation a few days earlier that A.R. overheard and may have seen. During that altercation, father broke a door handle getting into a room where he could talk with mother; mother and father shouted and cursed at each other for five or six minutes; and mother threw a shoe at father as he was voluntarily leaving. Neither mother nor father struck each other. The Department further learned that mother had called 911 several times in the past, including four calls reporting domestic violence; that father had been arrested in 2005 for inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse; and that two neighbors had reported overhearing fights and seen mother with bruises and a black eye. Mother, father, and A.R. all denied any physical contact, and A.R.’s grandmother and teacher (as well as the Department employee) never saw any marks or bruises on A.R. Eight months later, in January 2015, the Department filed a petition asking the juvenile court to assert dependency jurisdiction over A.R. on the grounds that mother and father “have a history of engaging in violent altercations[] in [A.R.’s] presence,” which created both (1) a “substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally,” as set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,