Filed 8/27/26 In re K.H. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.H. et al., Persons Coming B349727 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 25CCJP01373A-D)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
J.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Davis, Judge. Affirmed.
Kree D. Filer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent T.G.
______________________________
Appellant J.H. (mother) has four children born between 2019 and 2024. B.B. is the father of the two youngest children. Following an incident of domestic violence, mother obtained a criminal protective order that enjoins B.B. from abusing her. Mother did not enforce the protective order; she gave B.B. unlimited access to their two children in violation of the juvenile court’s orders; and she failed to protect the children from other incidents of domestic violence. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) commenced dependency proceedings on behalf of mother’s four children. During the proceedings, mother did not cooperate with DCFS and acted erratically and aggressively. She refused to answer questions, provided contradictory and false information, and would not participate in necessary meetings. As a result, DCFS and the children’s counsel had difficulty assessing the children’s well-being. After several hearings, the juvenile court removed the children from mother’s physical custody and placed them with the fathers and a paternal grandmother.
Mother appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional orders.
We affirm.
3
BACKGROUND
I. The Family Mother has four children—K.H. (born Aug. 2019), K.G.
(born Nov. 2020), K.B. (born July 2023), and Ka.B. (born Oct. 2024).1 Mother identified J.D. as K.H.’s father. Respondent T.G. is the presumed father of K.G. B.B. is the presumed father of K.B. and Ka.B. II. Reports of Domestic Violence A. 2020 to 2022 Referrals From 2020 through 2022, there were multiple referrals to DCFS alleging domestic violence between mother and various partners. These referrals were determined to be either “unfounded” or “inconclusive.” In 2022, DCFS suspected mother was being untruthful when she denied allegations of domestic violence between her and a boyfriend. However, the children were too young to provide a statement and the referral was closed as inconclusive. DCFS advised mother “about the consequences of exposing the children [to] domestic violence.”
B. 2023 Substantiated Finding of General Neglect On July 3, 2023, shortly after K.B.’s birth, both mother and K.B. tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Mother said she smoked THC during her pregnancy because she could not keep her food down. This resulted in a “substantiated” finding of general neglect of K.B.
C. February 2024 Report to DCFS In early February 2024, mother reported to DCFS that she and B.B. engaged in an argument; B.B. struck her with a glass liquor bottle, causing redness on her left arm; and K.B., then an
1 We refer to K.H., K.G., K.B., and Ka.B., collectively, as minors.
4
infant, was on the bed at the time of the altercation. According to the DCFS report, “[t]he father was arrested and the mother was granted an emergency protective order.” The referral was closed as “inconclusive.”
D. March 2024 Criminal Protective Order On March 18, 2024, a court issued a criminal protective order (protective order). In relevant part, the protective order states: “[B.B.] must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, stalk, molest, . . . disturb the peace of, keep under surveillance, . . . or block movements of [mother].” However, the protective order does not preclude mother and B.B. from having contact. The protective order is active from March 18, 2024, through March 17, 2027.
At the time, B.B. had a criminal record and was on probation. The criminal court extended B.B.’s probation and ordered B.B. to participate in a 52-week domestic violence program.
E. January 2025 Report to Pomona Police Department On January 28, 2025, mother called the Pomona Police Department to report an altercation with B.B. at a motel. The police report states that mother and B.B. were arguing about who should be responsible for watching their two children when B.B. allegedly grabbed mother’s ankles and forcefully pulled her off the bed. B.B. then allegedly dragged mother out of the room. The two children were asleep during the physical altercation between the parents. Mother told the police that B.B. “has physically assaulted her on three separate occasions in the past.”
F. April 2025 Report to the Sheriff’s Department On April 10, 2025, deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) responded to a medical emergency
5
call for service. Mother told the deputies that she and B.B. rented a room for the night with their two children in common, K.B. and Ka.B. In the morning, mother and B.B. began to argue over “infidelity” and B.B. allegedly “retrieved a yellow studded belt with rhinestones and proceeded to strike [mother] numerous times throughout her body.” The deputies took photographs of mother’s injuries and booked the belt into evidence. The deputies asked mother if she desired an emergency protective order; she responded that “she would seek one [at] a more convenient time to her.” Mother said it “was not her first time going through the restraining order process and [she] was familiar with the proceedings.” III. Investigation by DCFS On April 14, 2025, DCFS received a referral concerning the allegation of domestic violence on April 10 between mother and B.B., described above.
On April 16, 2025, a DCFS children’s social worker (CSW)
interviewed B.B. B.B. reported he lived with his mother, the paternal grandmother of K.B. and Ka.B. He denied there had been any domestic violence incidents with mother. B.B. stated that “he and mother got into a verbal argument, but it did not get physical.” According to B.B., mother was trying to cause a scene at the hotel and he left on foot with the children and took a bus home. B.B. said he had a criminal record “due to mother calling the police on him before at a separate hotel.” B.B. said that “when mother has the kids, she doesn’t want them, but when father has them, she wants them” and “that it is an ongoing pattern.” B.B. had the children, K.B. and Ka.B., in his care at the time of the interview. The CSW “did not observe any marks
6
or bruises on the children and they appeared to be meeting developmental milestones.”
On April 23, 2025, the CSW interviewed mother about the referral. Mother said that B.B. hit her with a belt after they had an argument about infidelity. Mother said B.B. “snatched the kids up and left” before law enforcement responded to the hotel. Mother said this was the first incident wherein B.B. had hit her.
On April 28, 2025, the CSW sent a text message to mother and B.B. stating that the reported incident from April 10, 2025, violated the protective order. On May 1, 2025, the CSW spoke to mother about the protective order. Mother said she was not aware of the protective order. She denied there was any domestic violence between her and B.B. in January 2025.
Also on April 28, 2025, the CSW saw mother in person at a motel. Mother had K.G. and Ka.B. in her care. The CSW observed that Ka.B. appeared appropriately dressed for the weather; did not appear to have any marks or bruises; and appeared to be meeting developmental milestones. IV. Juvenile Court Proceedings A. The Removal Order and Dependency Petition On May 5, 2025, the juvenile court issued an order removing K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B. As a result, the children were released to mother.
On May 9, 2025, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b)(1) (failure to protect) on behalf of minors based on mother’s and B.B.’s history of domestic violence. The petition alleged that mother and B.B.
2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
7
“have a history of engaging in violent altercations in the presence of” minors, that “mother failed to enforce the criminal protective order,” and that she “failed to protect . . . [minors] by allowing [B.B.] to have unlimited access to” them.
B. The Last Minute Information On May 22, 2025, DCFS filed a Last Minute Information for the Court (LMI), which recommended that “all minors be removed from the care of the mother to ensure their safety and well-being.”
Among other things, the LMI stated that mother told the CSW “multiple times that the department need[ed] to come watch these kids” and “that she [wa]s going to allow [B.B.] to come and get the children.” Accordingly, the CSW reported that she “ha[d] reason to believe that mother ha[d] possibly been violating the removal order by allowing father to visit the minors.” The CSW “informed mother that the children [could not] go with [B.B.], and if mother allow[ed] them to go with [B.B.], then all four of the children could potentially be detained.” Mother “appeared to be overwhelmed with caring for all four minors” and “was not receptive to any possible solutions outside of returning the minors to the father. She stated she needed them to go back with him so she could take care of her business. . . . She stated that someone from the department need[ed] to watch the kids.” Mother did “not appear to be able to be protective, as she . . . made multiple statements about returning the minors to their father. In addition, mother did not follow through on the [r]estraining [o]rder hearing, claiming that she [wa]s back with the father.”
The LMI details mother’s lack of cooperation with DCFS.
Mother refused to participate in a Child and Family Team (CFT)
8
meeting, saying “[s]he knows all about CFTs and does not want to talk about her wants, needs, and goals.” Mother would not directly answer questions from the CSW and was not forthcoming with information. Mother also provided contradictory information and was “argumentative and defensive throughout the conversation.” As a result of mother not being forthright, the CSW had difficulty locating and checking on K.B. and Ka.B. Nor could the CSW verify that mother was obeying the juvenile court’s removal order. Moreover, the CSWs had to terminate one visit because of “mother’s escalating behavior.”
C. The Initial Hearing At the May 23, 2025, initial hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case that minors were described by section 300, found B.B. to be K.B.’s and Ka.B.’s presumed father, and detained K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B.
The juvenile court informed mother’s counsel that it had read the LMI, found it “in many ways concerning,” and asked mother’s counsel why minors should be released to mother. Mother’s counsel stated that she discussed the LMI with mother, that mother acknowledged “feeling frustrated,” and that mother did not want minors removed and wanted to care for them. Mother’s counsel argued that DCFS could establish a safety plan that would require mother to keep DCFS informed of her location, cooperate with unannounced visits, and make minors available to the CSWs and minors’ counsel.
Over DCFS’s objection, the juvenile court ordered the minors to remain released to mother’s care with a safety plan. The court admonished mother that any violation of the court’s orders could result in minors being detained from her custody.
9
The court also issued a mutual stay away order for mother and B.B. The court set an adjudication hearing for July 2, 2025.
D. The Progress Hearing At a progress hearing on June 12, 2025, the juvenile court found that J.D. is not K.H.’s father after J.D. and his attorney submitted a negative paternity test. The juvenile court ordered K.H. to be released to mother.
E. Arraignment of T.G. On June 20, 2025, the juvenile court arraigned T.G. and found T.G. to be the presumed father of K.G. T.G. was a nonoffending parent and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Because the child was staying with T.G.’s mother, and because T.G. was nonoffending, the court made a Home of Parents order whereby K.G. was released to the custody of both mother and T.G.
F. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report According to DCFS’s jurisdiction/disposition report submitted to the juvenile court in late June 2025, mother reported that she was homeless and usually stayed in motels or with a nonrelated extended family member. Mother reported that K.G. was primarily cared for by her paternal stepgrandmother . Mother also reported that K.B. and Ka.B. were in the care of B.B.’s mother, their paternal grandmother.
On June 18, 2025, a dependency investigator interviewed mother and K.H. regarding the petition allegations. When asked about domestic violence, K.H. said mother and B.B. “sometimes fight at the hotel . . . . They yell and hit.” K.H. said she and her siblings were at times present at the hotel during the fights and other times they were at a family friend’s home. Asked how she
10
felt when she saw mother and B.B. fighting, K.H. responded, “It makes me cry.”
Mother said she disagreed with the petition allegations but declined to provide any additional statements and told the dependency investigator, “I don’t care about this.” Mother denied any domestic violence occurring between herself and B.B. and said that she did not need a stay away order.
Two days later, mother called the dependency investigator upset about the juvenile court allowing the children’s fathers to have unmonitored contact with them despite the fathers being “violent men.” The dependency investigator explained to mother that it was important for her to provide a statement regarding the petition. Mother stated that she was fearful because she had “not been protected in the past.” Mother discussed her history as a foster youth, the struggles of providing for her four children, and being homeless.
Mother stated, “We had 9 referrals before, but none ever got this far where we’ve had to go to court. I was living my best life, but I wasn’t stressed like this, but I’m so drained. Yes, the [petition] is true. We got into a situation and I defended myself and I got a restraining order and left, but I had to go back. What can I do if I live there? We lived with [B.B.]’s mom.”
When asked why mother was now willing to talk about the petition, mother responded, “I grew up by myself, so all I have is my kids. I don’t do anything to my kids or around my kids. My kids aren’t around it. They were not involved . . . . The kids have never seen him be aggressive. I just didn’t want to say something and then you guys take my kids. I need my kids with me. I’m not trying to do anything to anyone. I want to get away from them. I’m scared they’re going to retaliate.”
11
On June 26, 2025, mother contacted the CSW and stated:
“My kids are not safe with . . . [B.B.] I don’t want my kids with him at all. I don’t have any family at all, I grew up in the system. I take care of my own kids. That’s why I stayed with [B.B.] so long, I didn’t want to leave the kids with him. He’s a pimp. He’s a sex trafficker. I don’t want my kids to be with him.”
The dependency investigator interviewed B.B. at his residence on June 20, 2025. B.B. denied the petition allegations and said he never “put hands on” mother. B.B. denied any domestic violence between himself and mother and denied violating the protective order. B.B. also denied that mother had failed to protect minors from domestic violence.
DCFS assessed that the allegations of domestic violence between mother and B.B. were true. DCFS recommended the juvenile court sustain the section 300 petition, remove minors from mother’s physical custody, and offer family maintenance services.
Other than the domestic violence, no concerns were reported regarding mother’s or B.B.’s interactions with the children.
G. The Supplemental Report On August 11, 2025, DCFS filed a supplemental report summarizing recent communications with mother, T.G., and B.B. DCFS reported the following information:
On July 29, 2025, in an interview with the dependency investigator, mother requested a different CSW since she “cannot communicate” with the current CSW. Mother reported that B.B. had come looking for her at a nonrelated extended family member’s residence and at various motels, and that he “yelled at her through the window.” Mother further reported that she and
12
a nonrelated extended family member had gotten into three physical altercations with paternal grandmother during custody exchanges in the presence of the children. Mother also disclosed she was four months pregnant. Mother said that she let B.B. keep Ka.B. because she could not carry Ka.B. or take her on the bus while she was pregnant.
The CSW informed the dependency investigator that mother continued to demonstrate instability. Mother called the CSW 16 times in a row to demand K.G. be brought to her. Mother stated she and the children would be “flying out” to attend a funeral but did not provide any additional information. Mother would “often be disrespectful and scream and curse throughout their calls.”
On July 31, 2025, T.G. called the dependency investigator to express concerns regarding K.G.’s safety in mother’s custody. He had made plans to drop off K.G. with mother for the weekend so K.G. could celebrate K.H.’s birthday. Shortly thereafter, mother called him, was upset and aggressive, cussed at him, and called him a pedophile. According to T.G., mother threatened to tell the other children to “beat up” K.G. and she threatened to keep K.G. away from him. T.G. stated that because of this conversation, he did not feel comfortable dropping K.G. off and that he would await further court orders before proceeding with any more exchanges. T.G. also provided the dependency investigator with screenshots of mother’s Facebook posts wherein mother alleged that T.G. was a “pedophile.”
Also on July 31, 2025, the dependency investigator spoke with B.B., who said that mother was behaving erratically and unreasonably. B.B. stated that mother would call him repeatedly to demand the children, but when paternal grandmother drops
13
off the children, mother will call for the children to be picked up again. B.B. stated that the children are primarily in the care of himself and paternal grandmother and that mother does not use her full custodial time. B.B. denied mother’s reports that he had followed her or gone to where she was staying. B.B. also denied there had been any physical altercations between mother and paternal grandmother. B.B. completed the 52-week domestic violence program as ordered by the criminal court.
Finally, DCFS reported that mother “ha[d] been refusing to meet with [the] CSW.” DCFS reported that the CSWs needed to meet regularly with all family members in order to provide supportive services.
DCFS assessed the case as follows: “Since the last court date, the Department has continued to attempt to team with mother . . . in order to provide supportive services; however, [mother] has continued to behave erratically and aggressively with [the] CSW . . . and the fathers of her children.” DCFS reported that “[mother’s] threats to withhold the children from their respective fathers detrimentally impact the children’s well[- ]being emotionally as the children have a strong bond with their fathers from the Department’s observations.” DCFS also reported that “[mother] withholding the children from their fathers also detrimentally impact them physically and developmentally as the fathers are the primary figures who are prioritizing the children’s medical and dental examinations which mother has refused to do.”
H. The Second Last Minute Information In a Last Minute Information for the Court filed August 12, 2025 (Second LMI), DCFS reported that it was concerned about minors’ “physical and emotional well[-]being” as mother
14
continues to demonstrate erratic behaviors, has threatened to withhold K.G. from T.G., has withheld K.B. and Ka.B. from B.B., and has refused to provide the location of the children to the social worker. Further, mother “refused efforts to ensure that the children receive medical, dental, developmental, and mental health assessments and services.”
I. The Recommendations DCFS recommended that minors be removed from mother’s physical custody. Minors’ counsel joined in DCFS’s request to detain minors from mother. She stated: “I also have increasing concerns for my clients given what’s reported. . . . I am sympathetic to mother’s history but [DCFS] and my office need to be able to assess the safety of these minors.”
J. The Dispositional Hearing On August 13, 2025, after hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition as to allegations pled under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court dismissed the allegations pled under section 300, subdivision (a).
The juvenile court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that it was “reasonable and necessary to remove [K.G., K.B., and Ka.B.] . . . from . . . mother . . . because there [wa]s a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being, and special needs, if applicable, of the child[ren], and there [we]re no reasonable means by which the child[ren]’s physical health [could] be protected, without removing the child[ren] from the home and the care, custody, and control of” mother. With respect to K.H., for whom paternity was not established, the court made this finding as to the “parents.”
The juvenile court found that “mother has been completely uncooperative with the social workers” and “there’s been a
15
complete inability of mother to allow the department to do their work.” The court stated, “[t]hat’s troubling for me because I have to make sure that the kids are safe and that everybody is allowing folks to get checked out, allowing them to do their investigations.”
As to disposition, the juvenile court ordered K.G.’s case to close, granting T.G. sole physical custody. The court ordered that T.G. and mother would have joint legal custody, and that mother would have unmonitored weekend visits.
The court ordered K.B. and Ka.B. removed from mother’s physical custody and released them to their father, B.B. Over DCFS’s objections, the court granted mother unmonitored visits with DCFS having the ability to make unannounced appearances during her visits.
Finally, the court ordered K.H. removed from mother’s physical custody. The court released K.H. to T.G.’s stepmother, who also cared for K.G. and who had been assessed by DCFS as a suitable placement for K.H. The court granted mother unmonitored visits with K.H.
DISCUSSION
I. The Removal Order Mother challenges the juvenile court’s removal order as to all four children. She contends that “there was not clear and convincing evidence that the children were at risk of substantial or serious harm, if left in the care of the mother with the stay away order and a family maintenance plan.”
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review A juvenile court may remove a child from a parent’s physical custody if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
16
(1) “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home”; and (2) “there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s . . . physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c).)
“We review a dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence.” (In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944, 960.) “[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996.) Under this standard, “the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Ibid.) “We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (In re M.V., supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 960.)
B. There is Sufficient Evidence of Substantial Danger to Minors if Returned Home to Mother’s Custody 1. Domestic Violence
The petition under section 300, subdivision (b), which the juvenile court sustained, alleged that mother and B.B. “have a history of engaging in violent altercations in [minors’] presence,” and that mother failed to protect minors from this serious risk of harm. This allegation is supported by substantial evidence.
17
“It is clear to this court that domestic violence in the same household where children are living is neglect; it is a failure to protect.” (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194.) “Both common sense and expert opinion indicate spousal abuse is detrimental to children.” (In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1470, fn. 5.) “[E]ven if they are not physically harmed, children suffer enormously from simply witnessing the violence between their parents.” (In re Sylvia R. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 559, 562.)
Here, there were many referrals to DCFS regarding domestic violence between mother and various partners. In 2022, DCFS advised mother “about the consequences of exposing the children [to] domestic violence.” On March 18, 2024, a court issued a criminal protective order enjoining B.B. not to harass, strike, threaten, assault, hit, follow, stalk, or molest mother.
Despite the warning from DCFS, mother failed to enforce the protective order or take other measures to protect minors from domestic violence. Mother gave B.B. unlimited access to minors in violation of the juvenile court’s orders, and she allowed K.B. and Ka.B. to be exposed to physical altercations between her and B.B. K.H. also said she and her siblings were at times present during the fights between B.B. and mother. Although the LASD deputies asked mother if she desired a protective order, mother said she would seek one at “a more convenient time” and she did not inform the officers of the existing protective order. Thus, there is substantial evidence that minors were exposed to domestic violence while in mother’s care, that mother failed to take reasonable steps to protect them, and that it was likely to continue if they remained in mother’s custody.
2. Mother’s Behavior
18
Mother’s obstreperous behavior supports the juvenile court’s removal order. DCFS attempted to provide supportive services, but mother refused to meet with the CSWs. Mother was not forthcoming and provided contradictory or false information to the CSWs. As a result, the CSWs could not perform their duties, such as checking on the children. Nor could DCFS verify that mother was complying with the juvenile court’s order removing K.B. and Ka.B. from their father. In fact, DCFS had “reason to believe that mother ha[d] possibly been violating the removal order by allowing [B.B.] to visit the minors.”
Mother’s “erratic” behavior impacted her children directly.
Mother threatened to withhold the children from their respective fathers, which “detrimentally impact[ed]” their emotional well- being. Mother’s threats also “detrimentally impact[ed]” the children’s physical well-being, because their fathers were prioritizing their medical and dental examinations, which mother refused to do.
Similarly, minors’ counsel expressed concern for her clients based upon mother’s behavior. She also expressed concern that neither she nor DCFS was able to assess the minors’ well-being.
Mother argues that “a parent’s failure to cooperate with a social worker[] is not a basis to detain children from their parents.” We agree that, standing alone, “[t]he ability of a parent to get along with a social worker is not evidence from which a removal order can be supported.” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11, 25.) In this case, however, mother’s conduct went far beyond not “getting along” with the CSWs. Mother refused to meet with the CSWs and provided contradictory or false information. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court’s assessment that mother was so uncooperative that DCFS could
19
not verify minors’ safety. The juvenile court must consider “not only the parent’s past conduct, but also current circumstances, and the parent’s response to the conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention.” (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520, italics added.)
Mother argues that DCFS “never observed any concerning behaviors, appearances, or other physical observations of the children while they were in the appellant’s care.” To the contrary, mother’s failure to protect minors from domestic violence and her behavior exposed minors to a substantial risk of harm. Regardless, “ ‘ “[t]he parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” ’ ” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169–170.)
Finally, mother contends this case “is an unfortunate continuance of the recent and troubling trend, of . . . mothers being punished as victims of domestic violence” in juvenile court proceedings. (See In re Ma.V., supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at pp. 25– 26.) In this case, we are satisfied that the juvenile court removed minors based upon mother’s conduct, specifically, her failure to take reasonable steps to protect minors and her own “erratic” and obstreperous behavior which prevented DCFS and minors’ counsel from verifying the safety of the children.
C. There is Sufficient Evidence of No Lesser Alternative Than Removal of Minors from Mother’s Custody Mother has not shown that there was a reasonable alternative to removal of minors from her care. There is abundant evidence that mother failed to take reasonable steps to protect minors from being exposed to domestic violence. Further, there is abundant evidence that mother’s own “erratic” and
20
obstreperous behavior prevented DCFS and minors’ counsel from doing their work and was harmful to minors. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably find, by clear and convincing evidence, that there were no reasonable means by which minors could be protected without removing them from mother’s physical custody. II. Sufficient Findings of Fact and Harmless Error Mother argues that the juvenile court failed to cite specific facts prior to removing K.G. from her care and that this was not harmless error. In a removal proceeding, the juvenile court is required to determine “whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from their home” and “shall state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based.” (§ 361, subd. (e).) Incorporating the statutory language without stating the facts that support removal does not comply with this mandate. (See In re D.P. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1067.) However, the failure to make findings “ ‘will be deemed harmless where “it is not reasonably probable such finding[s], if made, would have been in favor of continued parental custody.” ’ ” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 247.)
We find no error. The trial court found that “mother ha[d]
been completely uncooperative with the social workers” and there had “been a complete inability of mother to allow the department to do their work.” The court stated, “[t]hat’s troubling for me because I have to make sure that the kids are safe . . . .” The court acknowledged that mother was the victim of domestic violence but found that “I have to consider one’s willingness to allow the department to do their work in making sure that the children are safe and well-cared for, and from the information
21
that the court has before it, I can’t be sure of that.” These findings apply to K.G.
Based on our review of the entire record, and as discussed above, we conclude it is not reasonably probable that the juvenile court would have found that minors could safely be returned to mother’s physical custody.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s dispositional orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
GOORVITCH, J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
RICHARDSON, J.