In re A.T.

── In re A.T. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re A.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E086411 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. J301961, J301962) v. OPINION R.G., Defendant and Appellant; A.T. et al., Minors Respondents. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin, Judge. Reversed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Helena C. Rho, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Marisa L.D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent, A.T. and R.T. I. INTRODUCTION 1 Section 300, subdivision (e) of the Welfare and Institutions Code (section 300(e)) permits juvenile courts to assert jurisdiction over a minor child if, “[t]he child is under five years of age and has suffered severe physical abuse by a parent . . . .” This case requires us to decide whether a juvenile court may assert jurisdiction under section 300(e) over a child who is over the age of five at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. We conclude that the court may not do so. In August 2024, plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino County Child and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition on behalf of respondents, A.T., then four years old, and R.T., then five years old. About a month later, the children were detained and removed from the care of their legal guardian, defendant and appellant, R.G. (the Guardian). At a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing seven months later, in April 2025, the juvenile court sustained section 300(e) allegations (the (e) findings), among others, as to both A.T. and R.T. At that time, A.T. was five years old and R.T. was six years old. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2  The Guardian appeals, arguing that the (e) finding as to A.T. must be reversed because he was five years old at the time of the jurisdiction hearing and the (e) finding as to R.T. must be reversed because she did not suffer severe physical abuse. We agree and reverse both findings. II. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Guardian became the children’s legal guardian in 2023. In August 2024, R.T. and A.T. were with the Guardian at a mall when a bystander called the police because A.T. had swollen eyes, purple cheeks, visible ribs, and bruises on his face. After interviewing the children, the police scheduled A.T. to be examined at the hospital. A.T. was diagnosed as severely malnourished and observed to have cuts on his face and bruising on his genital area and legs in addition to his other injuries. A physician found A.T.’s injuries “‘highly suspicious for physical abuse.’” CFS obtained a protective order for the children and placed R.T. in foster care while A.T. remained hospitalized for nearly two weeks. In August 2024, CFS filed petitions on the children’s behalf under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (inability to provide support). CFS amended the petitions in October 2024, adding allegation