In re A.M. CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: E086587
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 2/4/26 In re A.M. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E086587

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2400417)

v. OPINION

F.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sean P. Crandell, Judge.

Affirmed.

Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy

County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In the jurisdiction phase of the dependency hearing, the juvenile court found

there was substantial risk of A.M. (Minor) suffering serious physical harm due to

defendant and appellant F.G.’s (Father) failure to protect Minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code,

§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)1 In the disposition phase, the juvenile court denied Father’s

request to have Minor placed in his care. (§ 361.2.)

Father raises four issues on appeal. First, Father contends the jurisdiction finding

is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, Father asserts the juvenile court

applied the wrong statute in the disposition phase. Third, Father contends the detriment

finding (§ 361.2) is not supported by substantial evidence. Fourth, Father asserts the

inquiry into whether Minor might be an Indian child was inadequate. We affirm.

FACTS

A. BACKGROUND

Minor was born in December 2020. Father was not present at Minor’s birth and

was not on her birth certificate. Minor resided with Mother and Mother’s boyfriend,

M.L. (Boyfriend). Minor referred to Boyfriend as “daddy.” Father visited Minor three

times: once when Minor was five months old, once at 11 months old, and on Minor’s

second birthday.

B. DETENTION

In November 2024, Boyfriend argued with his 73-year-old grandmother and

“ ‘head butted’ [her] in the face.” Following that violence, while trying to evade law

1 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 enforcement, Boyfriend drove a vehicle over 130 miles per hour, at night, with the

headlights off. Minor was inside the vehicle without a child’s car seat.

The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department)

asked Father about filing for custody of Minor, but he declined because he was about to

start a two-week military deployment. Father admitted knowing that Boyfriend was

“unstable due to a previous investigation.” In December 2024, the Department detained

Minor.

C. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION

In January 2025, a paternity test revealed that Father was Minor’s biological

father. The Department scheduled a visit between Father and Minor for February 11,

2025, at the Department’s office in Temecula. On the day of the visit, Father canceled

due to the time it would take him to travel to Temecula from his home at Camp

Pendelton.

Father had a telephonic visit with Minor. “When [Father] spoke, [Minor] made a

confused face and stopped talking. She did not respond for the duration of the visit.

After the call, [Minor] told the [foster parent] that was not her father. [Minor] seemed

very confused as to who had been on the phone.”

On March 25, 2025, the social worker visited Minor at her foster home. Minor

held onto her foster parent’s leg and hid behind her. When the social worker asked

Minor “who her dad was, [Minor] shrugged her shoulders.”

In April 2025, Father and Minor had two in-person visits at the Department’s

office. During the first visit, Father and Minor played together and had a good visit.

3 During the second visit, when Father entered the room, Minor “went to the corner and

stayed there.” Father became agitated and upset, which scared Minor’s foster parent.

Father asked the foster parent if Minor “was always like that.” The foster parent

explained that Minor was shy and typically acted in that manner “around people she did

not know.” “[Father] got really close to [Minor], saying ‘Come on, why are you being

like this[?]’ [Father] went to grab [Minor’s] feet to get her out of the corner. The

[foster parent] intervened and excused herself and [Minor] to go to the bathroom. The

[foster parent] indicated that the security guard heard and office staff had gotten [Minor]

a blanket. [Minor] started crying and demanding to go home.”

The next week Father canceled his visit because he broke his hand and could not

drive. After that, for two and a half weeks, Father did not respond to the social worker’s

text messages. Because Father missed three consecutive visits, his visits were taken off

the schedule.

The jurisdiction and disposition hearing took place in June 2025. The

jurisdiction allegation against Father was: Father was not a member of Minor’s

household and he failed to provide Minor with adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical

treatment, and/or protection. Father provided evidence of (1) having sent Mother

money on multiple occasions via a cash app; (2) text messages between Father and

Mother of Father seeking visits with Minor; and (3) photographs of Father with Minor.

At the hearing, Father’s attorney asserted that the allegation against Father should be

found untrue because Father was “taking every step possible to provide [Minor] with

. . . adequate support.” Father’s attorney argued that any failings on Father’s part were

4 due to the military not giving Father “adequate time off base to handle these matters.”

Father’s attorney contended that Father was a non-offending parent, and Minor should

be placed in Father’s custody under section 361.2.

The juvenile court found that Father had been “providing certain, perhaps,

financial resources” to Mother for Minor and had sent text messages to Mother to try to

visit Minor, but Father never took legal action to visit or take custody of Minor. The

court found the allegation against Father to be true. The juvenile court determined it

would not place Minor with Father due to “the circumstances in the most recent

visitation.”

DISCUSSION

A. JURISDICTION

Father contends that the jurisdiction finding against him is not supported by

substantial evidence.

“ ‘In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In

making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to

support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the

light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and

credibility are the province of the trial court.’ ” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)

The allegation against Father was that Minor was at substantial risk of suffering

serious physical harm due to Father’s failure to protect Minor. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

The relevant elements are (1) neglect, failure, or inability by Father; (2) harm or

5 substantial risk of harm to Minor; and (3) causation. (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th

840, 848.)

Father admitted knowing that Boyfriend was “unstable due to a previous

investigation.” Despite that knowledge, Father did not seek to establish his paternity,

did not pursue custody of Minor, and he did not visit Minor to check on her wellbeing.

While Minor was in the care of Mother and Boyfriend, Boyfriend evaded police by

driving a vehicle at over 130 miles per hour, at night, with the headlights off. Minor

was inside the vehicle.

The foregoing evidence reflects that Father failed to protect Minor by doing

nothing to try to remove Minor from the care of an unstable person. Due to Father’s

inaction, Minor was in Boyfriend’s care during a moment of erratic behavior when

Boyfriend exposed Minor to a substantial risk of being physically harmed in a serious

car crash. Thus, substantial evidence supports the finding that Father’s failure to protect

Minor from Boyfriend created a substantial risk that Minor would suffer serious

physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

As to the future risk of harm, Father did not intend to take physical custody of

Minor so as to protect her from any future erratic behavior on the part of Boyfriend.

Father resides at Camp Pendelton, and he said Minor could not live there with him.

Father intended for Minor to reside with Father’s mother, in Los Angeles. Father

provided no evidence concerning his mother’s ability to protect Minor should Mother

and Boyfriend seek to contact Minor while Boyfriend was in an unstable condition.

6 For example, in June 2024, Mother and Minor were residing with Mother’s

family. “[M]other moved out with [Boyfriend] to an unknown address. On June 13,

2024, . . . [M]other and [Boyfriend] returned to the home in an attempt to sneak [Minor]

out. [Minor] was in her aunt’s room crying as she did not like [Boyfriend]. [Boyfriend]

stated he had a 45 gun and threatened the family if they did not allow . . . [M]other and

him to take [Minor]. No gun was observed however, [Boyfriend] started to lif[t] his

shirt and appeared to be intending to take out a gun however, . . . [M]other lowered his

shirt and they left the home without [Minor]. It was believed [Boyfriend] wanted . . .

[M]other to take [Minor] as he wanted the money . . . [M]other got for [Minor].”

If a similar situation were to occur at Father’s mother’s home, it is unknown

what Father’s mother could do to protect Minor, and Father would likely be many miles

away at Camp Pendelton unable to assist in protecting Minor. The evidence reflects

that Minor is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to Father’s failure

to protect Minor.

Father contends, “There was no allegation that Father knew or should have

known of [Minor]’s plight in Mother’s care.” The Department alleged that Father failed

to protect Minor and included facts regarding Minor being in the car while Boyfriend

drove over 130 miles per hour to evade law enforcement. The allegation that Father

failed to protect Minor combined with the facts of Boyfriend’s unsafe driving implies

that Father had knowledge of Boyfriend’s erratic behavior.

Father asserts that he “could not have obtained custody sooner, as he remained an

alleged [f]ather until the juvenile court made orders otherwise.” Contrary to Father’s

7 position, prior to the Department’s involvement Father could have pursued a voluntary

declaration of parentage to establish himself as Minor’s father. (Fam. Code, § 7573.)

In sum, the jurisdiction findings are supported by substantial evidence.

B. DISPOSITION

1. SECTION 361.2 VERSUS SECTION 361

Father contends that he was “entitled to consideration for placement pursuant to

section 361.2. The juvenile court erroneously removed custody of [Minor] from Father

pursuant to section 361.”

Under section 361.2, if there is a parent who was not residing with the child

when the dependency conditions arose, and that parent wants custody of the child, then

“the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that

parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-

being of the child.” (§ 361.2, subd. (a).)

At the disposition hearing, Father cited section 361.2 and requested that Minor be

placed in his care. The juvenile court denied Father’s request citing “the circumstances

in the most recent visitation.” The juvenile court’s comment implies that placing Minor

with Father would be detrimental to Minor’s emotional wellbeing, as demonstrated by

their most recent visit. Thus, the juvenile court applied section 361.2

Section 361 pertains to removing a child from the physical custody of the parent

with whom the child resided when the dependency petition was initiated. (§ 361, subd.

(c).) Minor has never resided with Father, so section 361 would not apply to Father.

Nevertheless, when the juvenile court was making its findings and orders, it said,

8 “[T]here is clear and convincing evidence of circumstances within Section 361 as to

each parent. Physical custody of the children remains removed from their[2] respective

parents.” The juvenile court erred in making that comment regarding Father. However,

the error is harmless given the juvenile court’s comments applying section 361.2.

2. DETRIMENT

Father asserts the evidence does not support a finding of detriment (§ 361.2,

subd. (a)), rather it reflects that “[Minor] and Father did not have a relationship.”

During Father and Minor’s last visit, Minor hid in the corner and repeatedly said

she wanted to go home. Father became agitated and upset, which scared Minor’s foster

parent. “[Father] got really close to [Minor], saying ‘Come on, why are you being like

this[?]’ [Father] went to grab [Minor’s] feet to get her out of the corner. The [foster

parent] intervened and excused herself and [Minor] to go to the bathroom. The [foster

parent] indicated that the security guard heard and office staff had gotten [Minor] a

blanket. [Minor] started crying and demanding to go home. The [foster parent] advised

[the social worker] when [Father] got upset, [Minor] was covering her face because he

got really close.”

The foregoing evidence reflects more than the lack of a relationship. It

establishes anger on the part of Father and fear on the part of Minor. Given the anger

and fear, the juvenile court’s emotional detriment finding (§ 361.2) is supported by

2 Minor’s half-sibling is also part of the case in the juvenile court. Boyfriend is the father of Minor’s half-sibling.

9 C. INDIAN CHILD INQUIRY

1. FACTS

The Department’s inquiry of Minor’s paternal family regarding whether Minor

may be an Indian child included Father, Minor’s paternal grandfather, and Minor’s

paternal grandmother. They all denied having Indian ancestry. Minor’s paternal aunt

and uncle resided with Minor’s paternal grandmother. The Department did not ask the

paternal aunt and uncle about possible Indian ancestry. The juvenile court found the

Department conducted an adequate inquiry and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

(25 U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply.

2. ANALYSIS

Father contends the juvenile court erred by finding the Department conducted an

adequate ICWA inquiry because the Department failed to inquire of Minor’s paternal

aunt and uncle.

“At the first contact with the child and each family member, including extended

family members, the county welfare department . . . has a duty to inquire whether that

child is or may be an Indian child.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b)(1).) The

definition of “ ‘extended family member’ ” includes the child’s aunts and uncles who

are at least 18 years old. (25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(2) & Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd.

(c)(1).)

Minor’s paternal aunt’s and uncle’s ages are not in the record. They reside with

their mother. Father was born in May 2003, which means he is 22 years old. Given that

Father is 22, it is possible that his siblings are under 18 years old. Because we do not

10 know the ages of Minor’s paternal aunt and uncle, we do not know if they meet the

definition of extended family members. As a result, Father has failed to demonstrate an

error occurred. (In re Julian R. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 487, 498-499 [appellant must

affirmatively demonstrate error].) Because this case is ongoing, we encourage the

Department to determine the ages of Minor’s paternal aunt and uncle to clarify any

obligation it may have to inquire of them.

DISPOSITION

The disposition order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.