In re J.P. CA3

Filed 10/29/20 In re J.P. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C091279 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239697) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.Y.,

Defendant and Appellant.

At the conclusion of a contested six-month review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e),1 the juvenile court made findings and orders returning J.P. (the minor) to the care and custody of S.Y. (mother) and ordering mother to participate in domestic violence perpetrator services. Mother now

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

contends the juvenile court erred in ordering her to participate in domestic violence perpetrator services. We will affirm the juvenile court orders. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2019, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the minor and her sibling, who is not part of this appeal. The petitions alleged under subdivision (b) that the parents failed to protect the children by engaging in domestic violence in the presence of the children, and further alleged that during the most recent incident, the parents violated the provisions of domestic violence restraining orders. The minor and her sibling were detained. The jurisdiction report detailed multiple instances of violence perpetrated by father against mother and instances where both parents violated domestic violence restraining orders by continuing contact and living with each other. The report also described an instance in May 2017 when, according to father, mother grabbed a stick and began hitting him with it. When he took the stick from her, he said mother punched him twice in the mouth. A neighbor said he heard yelling and saw mother punch father two times in the face. The neighbor reported that mother was the aggressor. Mother and father submitted to jurisdiction and the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. A contested disposition hearing took place over several days in July 2019. Mother had been participating in services. Mother testified at the hearing and maintained she was never the aggressor in the domestic violence with father, that she had been wrongfully arrested in May 2017 after defending herself with a stick, and that the criminal charges against her relating to the May 2017 incident had been dropped. The juvenile court issued a written ruling on disposition, ordering the minor and her sibling removed from parental custody and ordering parents to complete reunification case plans. Mother’s case plan included parenting education, individual counseling,