In re N.C. CA4/3

── In re N.C. CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 In re N.C. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE In re N.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G065919 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25DP0260) v. OPINION M.C. et al. Defendants and Appellants. Appeals from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daphne Grace Sykes, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Caitlin E. Howard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.C. Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.D.  Leon J. Page, County Counsel and Debbie Torrez and Samara Belgarde, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor. * * * M.C. (Father) and A.D. (Mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction order in which the court found their son N.C. (the child) came within its jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).1 Father also appeals from the court’s disposition order removing the child from his custody and providing Father enhancement services. For the reasons we explain, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding; we therefore affirm the jurisdiction order. Insufficient evidence, however, supports the disposition order to the extent it removes the child from Father’s custody. We therefore reverse the disposition order as to Father and remand with directions, inter alia, the court return the child to Father’s custody with family maintenance services. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. THE NONCUSTODY CHILD WELFARE PETITION On March 7, 2025, the Orange County Social Services Agency (the Agency) filed a noncustody child welfare petition on behalf of the child, who was then 20 months old; that petition was amended in August 2025 (the 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. 2 petition).2 The petition alleged the child came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) because the child suffered, or there was a substantial risk the child would suffer, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the failure or inability of the parents to supervise or protect the child adequately. The petition alleged, on February 9, 2025, Mother and Father were in an argument when Father, while holding the child in one arm, placed his other “forearm[] across [Mother]’s chest with force, causing . . . her to be backed up against the wall.” Father “then dragged his forearm down as it was still on her chest, causing . . . her to fall onto the floor.” The child “was crying during the incident.” Mother’s 12-year-old daughter, I.B., who was showering during the incident, heard a door slam and also “banging on doors.”3 She ran out of the shower when she heard the noises and then heard Mother and Fa