20+ year of experience
Trial ready
Personal attention
A domestic violence arrest, police call, or allegation can sometimes lead to two separate legal proceedings in California: a criminal case involving the accused adult and a juvenile dependency case involving the safety and welfare of the children.
Although both cases may arise from the same incident, they are legally separate. They involve different courts, different legal standards, different burdens of proof, and very different potential consequences.
Importantly, the fact that a child was present during an alleged domestic violence incident does not automatically mean that CPS can remove the child or that the juvenile court will take jurisdiction over the family.
The central question in a California dependency case is whether the evidence establishes that the child has suffered harm or currently faces the type of substantial risk of harm described in California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.
If you are facing a CPS Case, Call a Top-Rated CPS Defense and Criminal Defense Lawyer Today
A criminal domestic violence case focuses primarily on whether the accused person committed a criminal offense.
Depending on the allegations, criminal charges may include corporal injury to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, dating partner, or coparent under California Penal Code section 273.5. That statute generally applies when a person willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a qualifying victim. See Cal. Penal Code § 273.5(a), (b), (d).
Other allegations may involve domestic battery, criminal threats, assault, stalking, false imprisonment, vandalism, or child endangerment.
The prosecution in a criminal case must prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
A juvenile dependency case has a different purpose. It is a civil proceeding focused on the safety, protection, placement, and welfare of the child.
The dependency court is not deciding whether a parent is guilty of a crime. Instead, the court determines whether the child falls within one or more provisions of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and, if so, what orders are necessary to protect the child.
When law enforcement responds to a domestic violence incident involving a household with children, the circumstances may be reported to the county child welfare agency.
A CPS investigation can occur even if the child was not physically injured.
The fact that CPS investigates, however, does not mean that CPS will file a dependency petition. It also does not mean that removal is legally justified.
The agency will generally evaluate whether the alleged violence created an actual safety concern for the child.
Facts that may become particularly important include whether:
The relevant question is not simply whether domestic violence occurred. The dependency court must determine whether the statutory requirements for juvenile court jurisdiction have been established as to the particular child.
A California dependency proceeding generally begins when the county child welfare agency files a petition alleging that a child falls within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.
Domestic violence allegations frequently involve section 300(a), section 300(b)(1), or, depending on the circumstances, section 300(c).
Section 300(a) applies when a child has suffered, or faces a substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by a parent or guardian.
California law permits the court to consider factors such as the manner in which an injury occurred, repeated injuries involving the child or siblings, and other parental conduct indicating a risk of serious physical harm. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(a).
Section 300(b)(1) is frequently relevant in dependency cases involving allegations of domestic violence.
The statute applies when a child has suffered, or faces a substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness because of circumstances that include a parent’s failure or inability to adequately supervise or protect the child. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b)(1).
This provision can become important when CPS alleges that domestic violence created an ongoing danger to the child or that a parent failed to take adequate protective measures.
Section 300(c) concerns serious emotional damage or a substantial risk of serious emotional damage under the circumstances specified by the statute.
In some cases, CPS may rely on this provision when there is evidence that exposure to violence has caused, or places the child at substantial risk of, serious emotional harm.
The existence of family conflict by itself is not the legal test. The specific circumstances and the effect or potential effect on the child matter.
No.
A child’s presence during an alleged domestic violence incident can result in a CPS referral and investigation, but an investigation is not the same thing as establishing juvenile court jurisdiction.
California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 requires evidence satisfying one of its statutory grounds for jurisdiction. The analysis therefore depends on the nature of the alleged violence, whether the conduct is continuing, the child’s exposure to it, the child’s age and vulnerability, the parents’ protective capacities, and the existence of a present or future risk of harm. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.
This distinction is important because dependency jurisdiction is based on the circumstances affecting the individual child, not merely on the existence of an arrest or accusation.
After receiving a referral, a social worker may investigate the allegations and the child’s current safety.
Depending on the circumstances, CPS may seek information from parents, children, law enforcement, medical providers, relatives, teachers, or other people familiar with the family.
The agency may ultimately determine that court involvement is unnecessary. In other situations, it may recommend services, develop safety arrangements, seek court orders, or file a dependency petition.
Parents should understand that statements made during a CPS investigation can become important later, particularly when a criminal case is also pending.
Once a petition alleging that a child comes within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 is filed, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over issues involving custody and visitation while the dependency proceeding remains pending. Cal. R. Ct. 5.620(a).
Several stages may follow.
If CPS seeks to remove a child or the child has already been taken into protective custody, the juvenile court will address where the child should live while the dependency case proceeds.
The detention hearing occurs near the beginning of the case and can have major practical consequences for both the child and the parents.
Removal at this stage should not be confused with a final determination that the allegations in the dependency petition are true.
At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court decides whether the allegations necessary to establish jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 have been proven.
This is where the court determines whether the legal basis for dependency jurisdiction exists.
The dependency proceeding does not use the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That difference can explain why a dependency case may continue even when criminal charges are never filed, are reduced, or are dismissed.
If the juvenile court sustains jurisdiction, the case proceeds to disposition.
At disposition, the court determines what orders are necessary to protect the child.
Depending on the circumstances, a child may remain safely in a parent’s custody subject to court supervision and services. California Rule of Court 5.695 expressly contemplates continued parental custody subject to court ordered supervision in appropriate cases. Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(b)(2).
Removal is therefore not an automatic consequence of dependency jurisdiction.
Removal involves a separate legal determination.
Under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 and California Rule of Court 5.695, a juvenile court generally may not remove a dependent child from a parent’s physical custody unless the required statutory findings are established by clear and convincing evidence. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361(c); Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(c).
The law also requires consideration of whether the child’s safety can be protected through reasonable means without removal. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361; Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(d).
This distinction is significant.
CPS involvement does not automatically mean removal.
A dependency petition does not automatically mean removal.
Even a finding of dependency jurisdiction does not necessarily mean removal.
The court must separately determine whether the legal requirements for removing the child from parental custody have been met.
The two systems serve different purposes.
A criminal court determines whether the prosecution has proven that a defendant committed a criminal offense and, following a conviction, determines the appropriate criminal consequences.
A dependency court determines whether a child comes within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and what orders are necessary to protect the child.
A criminal case may result in incarceration, probation, fines, protective orders, counseling requirements, firearm restrictions, and other criminal consequences.
A dependency case may affect custody, visitation, placement, reunification services, counseling, parenting programs, protective orders, and ultimately parental rights.
The same underlying incident can therefore create very different legal risks in the two courts.
Yes.
A criminal case and a juvenile dependency case are separate proceedings.
A prosecutor’s decision not to file criminal charges does not necessarily prevent CPS from filing a dependency petition.
Similarly, dismissal of criminal charges does not automatically require dismissal of a dependency case.
One major reason is that the two proceedings ask different legal questions and apply different standards.
The reverse is also important. A dependency court finding does not itself establish criminal guilt.
One of the most complicated issues in dependency cases involving domestic violence arises when CPS alleges that the parent who experienced the violence failed to protect the child.
The agency may examine the parent’s response to the alleged danger, including steps taken to protect the child from future exposure.
Those facts may include compliance with protective orders, changes in living arrangements, safety planning, counseling, efforts to prevent further contact, or other protective measures.
The analysis should remain focused on child safety.
The fact that a person experienced domestic violence does not, standing alone, establish that the person is unable to protect a child.
Domestic violence cases can involve coercive control, financial dependence, threats, housing concerns, immigration concerns, trauma, and other significant barriers.
The relevant dependency question is whether the evidence establishes a statutory risk to the child and whether reasonable protective measures can address that risk.
Criminal protective orders can significantly affect a related dependency proceeding.
For example, a criminal court may impose restrictions on contact between adults or between a defendant and other protected persons.
At the same time, the dependency court may be deciding custody and visitation issues involving the child.
Once a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 has been filed, California law gives the juvenile court exclusive jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues involving that child while the dependency proceeding remains pending. Cal. R. Ct. 5.620(a).
When multiple court orders exist, counsel may need to address potential conflicts so that a parent understands exactly what conduct is permitted.
Parents facing simultaneous criminal and dependency proceedings should understand that decisions made in one case can potentially affect the other.
Statements about the alleged incident may become important evidence.
A parent may also be asked to discuss the incident in connection with social worker interviews, counseling, treatment, parenting services, or safety planning.
This creates an important strategic issue when criminal charges are pending or reasonably anticipated.
A person facing both proceedings should therefore obtain individualized legal advice before assuming that statements made for purposes of the dependency case cannot affect the criminal matter.
Every case depends on its own facts, but several issues frequently become important.
Parents should understand the allegations being made against them and the specific safety concerns CPS claims exist.
They should carefully review and comply with existing criminal protective orders, juvenile court orders, and custody orders.
They should preserve relevant documents, communications, photographs, police reports, court orders, and records that may become important.
They should also understand that taking appropriate protective steps can be highly relevant to the court’s assessment of whether a present risk continues to exist.
Most importantly, a parent dealing with simultaneous criminal and dependency proceedings should understand how decisions in one case may affect the other before making important legal decisions.
No.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden applicable to criminal convictions.
Dependency proceedings use different evidentiary standards.
This difference is one reason a dependency case and a criminal case arising from the same allegations can reach different results without necessarily being legally inconsistent.
The criminal case focuses on criminal guilt.
The dependency case focuses on whether the statutory requirements for juvenile court jurisdiction and any requested protective orders have been established.
No.
An arrest does not automatically establish dependency jurisdiction, and it does not automatically satisfy California’s legal requirements for removing a child from parental custody.
The juvenile court must make the findings required by California dependency law.
For removal at disposition, the court generally must make the applicable findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 by clear and convincing evidence. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361(c); Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(c).
The availability of reasonable alternatives to removal is also an important part of that analysis.
Yes, depending on the circumstances.
California dependency law permits children to remain in a parent’s physical custody under juvenile court supervision when the court determines that arrangement can safely protect the child. Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(b)(2).
Possible orders may include services, counseling, supervision, protective orders, visitation restrictions, or other conditions tailored to the circumstances.
Whether a child can safely remain home is a fact specific determination.
Concurrent criminal and dependency proceedings can create complicated strategic issues.
A decision that appears helpful in one proceeding may have consequences in the other.
Parents may need to consider criminal exposure, statements to social workers, protective orders, custody and visitation, dependency allegations, safety planning, and the possibility of removal at the same time.
Because these proceedings interact but remain legally distinct, coordinated legal strategy can be especially important when a domestic violence allegation has resulted in both criminal charges and CPS involvement.
Not necessarily. Whether a child welfare investigation occurs depends on the information reported to the agency and the circumstances involving the children.
Yes. The relevant issue is not limited to whether a child personally watched an incident. CPS may investigate allegations that a child was otherwise exposed to danger or placed at risk.
Yes. Dependency jurisdiction does not depend on obtaining a criminal conviction.
No. Filing a petition and removing a child are different legal actions. Removal requires separate findings under California dependency law.
Potentially, yes. California dependency law permits a child to remain with a parent under court supervision when appropriate. Cal. R. Ct. 5.695(b)(2).
Dismissal of the criminal case can be important, but it does not automatically terminate a juvenile dependency proceeding because the two systems apply different legal standards and address different legal questions.
Domestic violence allegations can lead to CPS involvement when the circumstances raise concerns about a child’s safety.
But a police call, arrest, argument, or allegation of domestic violence does not automatically establish that a child is a dependent of the juvenile court, and it does not automatically justify removing a child from a parent.
California dependency law requires the court to evaluate the particular circumstances involving the child, including whether the statutory grounds for jurisdiction have been established, whether a present or future risk exists, what protective measures are available, and whether the child can safely remain with a parent.
When criminal and dependency proceedings are pending at the same time, parents should treat both matters seriously because statements, protective orders, custody issues, and litigation decisions in one proceeding can affect the other.
This article provides general information about California law and is not legal advice. The outcome of any criminal or juvenile dependency matter depends on the specific facts, evidence, procedural history, and applicable law. Anyone facing a domestic violence investigation, criminal prosecution, CPS investigation, or juvenile dependency proceeding should consult qualified counsel regarding their individual circumstances.
All fields are required. If you need immediate assistance, do not hesitate to call us at (866) 811-4255.
Mohammad Abuershaid, professionally known as Mo Abuershaid, is the founding partner of ALL Trial Lawyers and one of California’s most trusted authorities in dependency law, juvenile dependency cases, CPS defense, and high stakes CPS cases.