In re D.G. CA2/2

Filed 12/22/20 In re D.G. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.G. et al., Persons Coming B304304 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07515)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rashida A. Adams, Judge. Affirmed. Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________________

Appellant C.G. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court’s exercise of dependency jurisdiction over her children. The court found that Mother physically abused one child, placing the others at risk of serious harm; Mother allows Marco A., an alcoholic and father of her youngest, to frequent the home in violation of a restraining order; Marco endangers the children by engaging in violent altercations, and aggressive and threatening behavior in the presence of the children, and Mother failed to protect the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)1 Substantial evidence supports dependency jurisdiction. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother has eight children. Three are adults who are not part of this proceeding. Mother’s five minor children are: D.G. (born in 2003); A.G. (2005); J.G. (2007); S.G. (2012); and R.E. (2018). Mother is separated from her husband, B.G., presumed father of all the children except R.E.; he lives in West Virginia and is not an offending parent. Marco A. is the biological father of R.E. Neither father is a party to this appeal. In January 2019, respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) was notified that Marco hit Mother in the face as she pushed R.E. in a stroller on the street. He tried to take R.E., who cried but was uninjured. Police arrested Marco for domestic violence and for violating a criminal protective order issued in 2018 as a condition of his probation. Mother obtained a restraining order (RO) against Marco. She told DCFS that Marco is an alcoholic who is aggressive when intoxicated. DCFS warned Mother that allowing Marco in her home would have “consequences” due to his domestic violence. Marco was incarcerated for his attack on Mother. A second criminal protective order was issued in October 2019 as a condition of probation. His criminal history includes convictions for driving under