Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re A.J. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B342306

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (40K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/20/26 In re A.J. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re A.J., a Person Coming Under B342306
the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County Super.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Ct. No. 24CCJP02224A)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.W. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Cathy J. Ostiller, Judge. Affirmed.
David M. Yorton, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.W.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant A.M.
Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn D. Harrison, County
Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah
Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family
Services.

---

D.W. (Father) and A.M. (Mother) challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s exercise of
jurisdiction over their daughter, A.J. (born 2017). Father also
challenges the disposition order removing A.J. from his custody.
We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Referral and Petition
In June 2024 the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral
alleging that seven-year-old A.J. threatened to kill several
students. During a risk assessment by a therapist, A.J. disclosed
Mother and Father “hit her with a belt all over her body.” A.J.
also told the therapist that her stepmother, Courtney, hit her in
her mouth and “all over her body.” The police found marks on
A.J.’s body, including on her wrists and thighs, and scars on her
back.
A social worker interviewed A.J., who repeated that both
parents hit her with a belt. She reported Mother had hit her
with the hard part of a hairbrush and a sandal. A.J. said these
incidents happened a long time ago, but she did not remember
when. A.J. denied being afraid of Mother but said she cried when
Mother hit her and that Mother would tell her to “shut up” when
she cried. She indicated a bruise on her left inner thigh was from
Mother hitting her with a belt because she did not clean her

2
room, and two small bruises on her elbow were from Mother
hitting her with a belt. A.J. did not remember the last time
Mother hit her, but said it was when she was seven years old (she
turned seven in January 2024).
A.J. also told the social worker that Father hit her and
Courtney hit her in the mouth and pinched her. She was afraid
of Father because he hit her. A.J. relayed a time that Father hit
her because she played with her sister’s nail polish. She
indicated that a mark on her wrist was from Father hitting her
with a belt. A.J. did not know the source of small bruises on her
lower legs, though she said she bruised her ankles roller skating.
She explained a burn on her buttocks came from playing with fire
on the stove. She stated she felt safe with both parents—except
when Father hit her or when she disobeyed Mother.
Mother denied hitting A.J. but admitted to spanking her
with an open hand. She disciplined A.J. by “occasionally yelling
at her” and taking away television and electronics. Mother could
not explain most of A.J.’s injuries, including those on her back or
inner thigh, but said the ankle bruises came from skating. She
said A.J. often lied and had difficulty at school because of
behavioral problems.
Father lived with Courtney, his three daughters and step-
daughters, B.W. (19 years old), M.H. (16 years old), and M.W.
(eight years old), and his son, D.W. (three years old). Father
denied that either he or Courtney hit A.J. and said he disciplined
his children by taking away electronics or ignoring them.
Courtney denied the allegations and was “very shocked and
upset” by the report. She said Father never hit or verbally
abused A.J., and asserted she and Father were more lenient with
her than with the other children because A.J. didn’t live with

3
them full-time. Courtney had not seen any concerning marks on
A.J. but noted A.J. was very active and athletic and could get
bruises from playing. She confirmed they disciplined A.J. with
stern talks, timeouts, or taking privileges away. At most, she
said, they would “ ‘pop the kids on the butt once’ ” after repeated
disobedience. Courtney described A.J. as having emotional
regulation issues, a history of lying and stealing, and occasionally
acting with malicious intent.
Several people in and close to the family denied seeing
abuse. M.H., Courtney’s daughter, and B.W., A.J.’s adult half-
sister, both denied abuse, reported feeling safe in the home, and
described Father and Courtney positively. Both M.H. and B.W.
said A.J. had a history of lying and being manipulative. The
paternal grandmother, a teacher and mandated reporter with a
master’s degree in counseling, shared a close bond with the
family and denied any concerns about abuse. She stated the
allegations about Father were false. Father’s probation officer,
who met with him twice a month, said he was “very respectful
and cooperative.” She had interacted with all of the children and
never observed signs of abuse or neglect. She described the
children as happy and “so bright and respectful.” A.J.’s daycare
provider also had no concerns. She noted that A.J. struggled
with sitting still, sometimes fought with other children, and had
caused another child to stop attending daycare.
A.J. was placed with Tina C., a family friend, pending the
jurisdiction hearing. According to Tina, A.J. told her that both
parents “whoop[ed] her” and abused her. A.J. said Mother hit
her with a belt, though Tina did not observe bruises suggesting
recent abuse. Tina reported that A.J. had behavioral issues,
including lying and hitting other children, and she believed A.J.

4
needed counseling due to trauma and exposure to age-
inappropriate experiences.
A.J.’s Hub1 exam documented several marks on A.J. but
stated there was “[n]o medical finding indicative of physical
abuse.” She had a scratch on her forehead, reportedly from
another student, and healed marks the examiner deemed were
consistent with accidental injury. During the exam, A.J. stated,
“No, my mom does not hit me. I feel safe with my mom.” The
Department noted A.J. might have withheld information because
Mother was present during the exam.
The Department filed a petition requesting the juvenile
court assert dependency jurisdiction over A.J. under subdivisions
(a) and (b)(1) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,2 based
on allegations of physical abuse by both parents. The petition
further alleged under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), that Father
failed to protect A.J. from physical abuse by Courtney. The
juvenile court detained A.J. from both parents and ordered
monitored visitation.

B. Jurisdiction and Disposition Findings
In an August 2024 interview Mother denied the allegations
in the petition. She described A.J. as attention-seeking and said
she made false statements to avoid getting in trouble for the
threats she made at school. Mother stated A.J. was always
getting hurt, scratched, and bruised. She explained one alleged

1 The Los Angeles County Medical Hub clinics provide health
care for children who are involved with the Department.
2 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise indicated.

5
burn mark as a keloid scar and attributed other injuries to events
that happened after A.J.’s removal. Mother admitted to spanking
A.J. “a ‘couple times’ with an open hand.” She denied seeing
marks after visits with Father or hearing A.J. complain about
discipline.
Father denied the allegations as well. He said he was
usually on the phone when Mother disciplined A.J., and he
denied any physical abuse, stating, “No one is getting beat or hit
or slapped. I might have to talk stern and a cuss word may come
out but nah.” Father denied Mother would be capable of physical
abuse, stating she “goes above and beyond” when it came to
parenting. He and Courtney had an unwritten rule never to
spank A.J., although Father may “ ‘give an open pop (open hand)
on the butt and that is it.’ ” Father had an upcoming hearing on
non-violent federal charges and expected to be sentenced to
prison.
The maternal grandmother had not seen Mother discipline
A.J. and denied that A.J. reported abuse by Mother, Father, or
Courtney. She had no concerns about any of them but noted her
relationship with Mother was “on and off.”
In a forensic interview, A.J. said she played “really rough”
but denied getting marks from playing. She felt safe at both
parents’ homes. A.J. said Mother only disciplined her with
timeouts and chores and denied telling anyone otherwise. She
did not remember what she told the police and said, “I can’t
remember. My mind is just dizzy right now. I can’t remember.”
A.J. first said Father also only used timeouts but later reported
that he “whooped” her and her sister for repeating questions and
that he hit her on the arm with a belt. She also stated that

6
Courtney “pop[ped]” her in the mouth for talking back and
pinched her arm.
The forensic interviewer noted A.J. appeared “reluctant to
speak, avoidant, and appeared very aware of the cameras by
looking at them before she answered certain questions.” She
minimized or denied her prior disclosures, despite previously
giving consistent statements to school staff, the Department, and
law enforcement about being hit with a belt and other objects by
both parents and being pinched and slapped by Courtney. The
interviewer concluded, “Continued [Department] intervention
appears warranted.”
Later in October the maternal grandmother told the
Department that Mother had coached A.J. and that the
grandmother had previously withheld this information to protect
Mother. The maternal grandmother was concerned about A.J. if
she was released to Mother. She had witnessed years of abuse
and neglect by Mother, including dropping her son on his head as
a toddler and hitting A.J. in the face with a paint roller, leaving a
mark between her eyes. Although Mother had claimed her now
adult son could not communicate well enough to be interviewed,
the maternal grandmother said he held a job, was verbal, and
had no such issues.
At the November 2024 jurisdiction hearing the juvenile
court sustained the petition. The court stated it had “gone back
and forth,” but ultimately found A.J.’s initial disclosures credible.
Because A.J. “had no problem talking about Father and the
stepmother during the forensic interview,” the court believed
Mother coached A.J. not to say anything about her, which was
corroborated by the maternal grandmother. The court concluded,
“I think this goes beyond inappropriate physical discipline. The

7
number of objects that were described, the bruises that were left
on the child I do think show physical abuse rather than simply
inappropriate physical discipline. . . . And yes, she is an active
child. Yes, she engages in horseplay. She’s got behavioral issues
at school. All of those things are true. But in this case, I believe
both things are true. I think she was physically abused, and I
think the Department has met its burden on that as to both
parents and stepmother.”
At the disposition hearing the juvenile court declared A.J. a
dependent, removed her from both parents, and ordered
reunification services. During the hearing, the court stated, “I do
believe that this is more a case of the child being intimidated
about talking about what happened to her rather than feeling
guilty that she brought this to the attention of somebody and is
now trying desperately to retract it.” Both parents’ visitation
remained monitored.
Father and Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Substantial Evidence Supports the Jurisdiction Findings
Mother and Father assert we must reverse the jurisdiction
findings under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1), because
they were unsupported by substantial evidence. Their
contentions are unavailing.
1. Governing law and standard of review
Under section 300, subdivision (a), the juvenile court may
assert jurisdiction if “[t]he child has suffered, or there is a
substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm
inflicted nonaccidentally upon the child by the child’s parent or
guardian.” A parent’s use of inappropriate physical discipline

8
may support jurisdiction. (See In re David H. (2008)
165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1644-1645 [jurisdiction proper under
§ 300, subd. (a), where mother struck child with a belt, cord, and
ruler and left bruises, red marks, welts, and broken skin].) In
general, “[w]hether a parent’s use of discipline on a particular
occasion falls within (or instead exceeds) the scope of [the]
parental right to discipline turns on three considerations:
(1) whether the parent’s conduct is genuinely disciplinary;
(2) whether the punishment is ‘necess[ary]’ (that is, whether the
discipline was ‘warranted by the circumstances’); and
(3) ‘whether the amount of punishment was reasonable or
excessive.’ ” (In re D.M. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 634, 641.) The
juvenile court also may consider the totality of a parent’s
disciplinary methods, including past incidents, to determine
whether jurisdiction is appropriate. (In re D.D. (2019)
32 Cal.App.5th 985, 995.) “ ‘A parent’s “ ‘[p]ast conduct may be
probative of current conditions’ if there is reason to believe that
the conduct will continue.” ’ ” (In re J.A. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th
1036, 1048.)
We review jurisdiction findings for substantial evidence—
evidence that is “ ‘ “reasonable, credible, and of solid value,” such
that a reasonable trier of fact could make such findings.’ ” (In re
L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; accord, In re J.S. (2021)
62 Cal.App.5th 678, 685.) A “reviewing court should ‘not reweigh
the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve
evidentiary conflicts.’ ” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614,
640; see In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1149
[“[I]nconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence go to credibility of
witnesses and weight of the evidence, which are matters for the
trial court.”].) “The appellant has the burden of showing there is

9
no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the
findings.” (In re E.E. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 195, 206; see In re
J.S., at p. 685.)
2. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdiction
findings under section 300, subdivision (a)
Substantial evidence supports the jurisdiction findings
based on Mother’s and Father’s physical abuse of A.J. A.J. was
consistent in her initial reports of physical abuse to her school
counselor, the police, and the Department social worker. Those
reports were detailed. She stated Mother had hit her with the
hard part of a hairbrush and a sandal, and Father hit her with a
belt after she played with her sister’s nail polish. A.J. further
identified specific injuries and explained their causes: She said
Mother hit her with a belt on her left inner thigh because she did
not clean her room, leaving a bruise; Mother also hit her with a
belt on her elbow, leaving two bruises; and Father hit her with a
belt, leaving a mark on her wrist. Given that level of specificity—
including identifying the objects used and connecting them to
particular bruises—the court found A.J.’s initial disclosures
reliable. We defer to the juvenile court’s credibility findings.
(See In re S.A., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1148-1149.)
Further, A.J.’s reports were corroborated. The police
observed marks on A.J.’s body, including marks on her wrists and
thighs and scars on her back. Tina, who cared for A.J. in July
2024, reported that A.J. told her during the car ride home that
Mother “whoop[ed]” her and both parents abused her. The
maternal grandmother also described a longstanding pattern of
Mother’s abuse and neglect, including that Mother threw a paint
roller at A.J. when she was four years old, leaving a mark
between her eyes.

10
Mother and Father cite evidence they say undermines the
jurisdiction findings, such as that A.J. may have made her initial
statements to avoid getting in trouble at school; that her bruises
came from horseplay and sports; that she denied abuse by either
parent during the Hub exam and by Mother during the forensic
interview; and that A.J.’s daycare provider, Father’s probation
officer, and others denied they suspected abuse. Mother also
notes that the maternal grandmother initially denied seeing any
discipline or marks and had a strained relationship with her,
suggesting the grandmother’s later statements were unreliable.
These arguments simply challenge how the juvenile court
weighed the evidence. As discussed, we may not “ ‘ “ ‘reweigh the
evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses or resolve
evidentiary conflicts.’ ” ’ ” (In re Miguel J. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th
635, 647.) Rather, our task is to determine if there is substantial
evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the juvenile
court’s findings. (See In re Jayden A. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th
1334, 1347; In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 774 [“ ‘we do
not consider whether there is evidence from which the
dependency court could have drawn a different conclusion but
whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion
that the court did draw’ ”].) Here, there was.
Moreover, the juvenile court had sound reasons for
discounting the contrary evidence. For example, the forensic
interviewer observed that A.J. was reluctant to speak, avoided
direct answers, and appeared highly aware of the cameras, which
the interviewer believed warranted continued Department
intervention. Similarly, the Department noted A.J. may not have
disclosed abuse during the Hub exam because Mother was
present. The maternal grandmother also reported that Mother

11
had been coaching A.J., supporting the court’s conclusion that
A.J.’s retractions were coached. Nor is absolute consistency in a
child’s account of abuse required to support a jurisdiction finding.
(See In re I.C. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 869, 896 [“A child’s account may
reflect uncertainty, and may even contain some contradictions,
and nevertheless warrant the court’s trust.”].)
Mother argues A.J. identified only “a couple of bruises” as
being caused by her and contends those injuries “should be
considered insufficient to sustain the allegation of physical abuse
under subdivision (a).” Even assuming A.J.’s bruises were not
“serious” injuries, “section 300, subdivision (a) may apply when a
minor suffers less serious injuries but there is a history of
repeated abuse.” (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128,
139.) Here, A.J. described multiple incidents in which Mother hit
her with a hairbrush, sandal, and belt, and Father hit her several
times with a belt. Mother could not explain visible marks,
including scars on A.J.’s back, which could have resulted from
prior abuse.3 The maternal grandmother reported years of
mistreatment, including the incident where Mother threw a paint
roller at A.J.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding
that both Mother and Father physically abused A.J.4 (See In re

3 There were also issues with Mother’s credibility. She told
the Department her adult son could not communicate well
enough to be interviewed, while the maternal grandmother
stated he had no such difficulty, held a job, and was “very verbal.”
4 Because substantial evidence supported the allegations in
the petition under section 300, subdivision (a), of physical abuse
by Mother and Father, we need not address the allegation that
Father failed to protect A.J. from Courtney’s abuse, or whether

12
D.M., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 641; In re A.E. (2008)
168 Cal.App.4th 1, 3 [substantial evidence supported jurisdiction
findings when a parent struck her son with “hard objects,
violently enough to leave black and blue bruises”].)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal of A.J. From
Father
Father argues the juvenile court’s order removing A.J. from
him was not supported by substantial evidence.
Once a court has asserted dependency jurisdiction, it may
remove the child from a parent if it finds, by clear and convincing
evidence, “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the
physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-
being of the [child] if the [child] were returned home,” and “there
are no reasonable means by which the [child’s] physical health
can be protected” other than removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) In
reviewing a finding that must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence, we ask “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.”

jurisdiction was proper under section 300, subdivision (b)(1).
(See In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“ ‘When a dependency
petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor
comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing
court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over
the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that
are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial
evidence’ ”]; In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 237 [“ ‘an
appellate court may decline to address the evidentiary support
for any remaining jurisdictional findings once a single finding has
been found to be supported by the evidence’ ”].)

13
(Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011-1012.) We
view the record in the light most favorable to the finding,
resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences from
the evidence to support the finding. (Ibid.)
The same evidence of Father’s physical abuse of A.J. also
supports the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that A.J.
would have faced substantial danger of serious harm if placed in
Father’s care. (See In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 826
[“[s]ince the evidence warranted a finding of substantial risk of
serious physical injury, it also appears to have supported a
finding under section 361 . . . of a substantial danger to the
minor’s physical health”], abrogated on another ground in In re
R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 629.) Father asserts there were
individuals who could have observed A.J. in his home and
reported any issues to the Department. However, those
individuals did not disclose Father’s previous abuse of A.J.
Substantial evidence supported the order removing A.J. from
Father’s custody.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition
order removing A.J. from Father are affirmed.

STONE, J.
We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

FEUER, J.

14