In re M.P. CA1/4

── In re M.P. CA1/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 In re M.P. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR In re M.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L.C., Defendant and Appellant, A175076 v. SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH (Solano County Super. Ct. AND HUMAN SERVICES Nos. JD25-00056, DEPARTMENT, J43474-001) Plaintiff and Respondent. L.C. (mother) appeals an order issued following a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition regarding her now twelve-year-old son, M.P., and her now three-year-old daughter, P.P. Mother does not challenge the court’s jurisdictional findings but argues that the court erred in removing the children from her care. We find no error and affirm the order. 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.  BACKGROUND On July 30, 2025, the department received a referral regarding concerns for excessive physical discipline of M.P. as well as emotional abuse relating to domestic violence in the home. Specifically, it was reported that father had choked M.P. and attempted to harm mother when she intervened, and that P.P. was present during the incident. Interviews with mother and M.P. the following day confirmed the report. On August 7, the department filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). As to mother, the petition alleged that she and father had a significant history of engaging in domestic violence in the minors’ presence and, based in part on the events of July 30, that she is unable to protect M.P. from father’s excessive discipline. With respect to father, the petition alleges that his “engagement in domestic disputes and inability to control his anger in the presence of the minor[s] places the minors at significant risk of physical harm, abuse and/or neglect.” Before the detention hearing, the social worker reported that in an interview on July 31, mother said that she and father have been in a relationship since 2013. Mother indicated that she called the police on July 30 due to safety concerns. The report states: “When law enforcement arrived, the mother denied a restraining order and reported she is ‘not ready’ to take that step.” Mother told the social worker that she “would like father to take anger management classes” and that she “would work with the property manager to have her locks changed, as she did not want the father back in the home.” Mother and the social 2 worker completed a safety plan that indicated she would contact law enforcement if father returned to the home and she would contact her support people if she felt unsafe due to father attempting to come to the home. The social worker reported further that mother and father had a prior dependency case from 2016 in which the court sustained allegations that mother and father were unable to protect M.P. as a result of domestic violence in their relationship. At that time, M.P. was removed from father’s care but continued in mother’s care with family maintenance services. Jurisdiction was terminated with the parents having joint legal custody and mother having sole physical custody. The report also lists an additional child welfare referral in 2023 for emotional and phy