The California Court of Appeal has upheld a juvenile court's decision to remove three children from their parents due to ongoing concerns about domestic violence. The ruling affects the family of J.S. and A.M., who faced allegations of failing to protect their children from a violent environment. This case highlights the court's focus on child safety in situations involving domestic abuse.

The court's ruling, filed on November 4, 2026, in case number E087914, affirmed the removal of the children, Alivia M., A.M., and Jasper M., from their parents' custody. The court found there was a substantial danger to the children's safety if they remained in the home, citing a history of domestic violence and the parents' inability to provide a safe environment.

Background

The parties involved in this case are J.S. (the father) and A.M. (the mother), who are married and have three children together. The family also includes A.D., the mother's older daughter from a previous relationship. The dispute arose after San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) received a referral regarding a domestic violence incident at the family's home on May 22, 2025. During this incident, A.M. reported that J.S. was acting violently and had a machine gun, with the children present in the home.

Following the incident, law enforcement found that there was an active restraining order protecting A.M. and the children from J.S. Despite this, A.M. allowed J.S. to return home multiple times, raising concerns about her protective capacity. CFS conducted an investigation and found a history of domestic violence incidents, leading to the filing of petitions to remove the children from their parents' custody.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal ruled that the juvenile court had sufficient evidence to support the removal of the children. The court stated, "There was clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the children..." The court emphasized that no reasonable means existed to protect the children without their removal from the parents' custody.

The ruling noted that A.M. had not adequately addressed the issues that led to the domestic violence, and her ongoing communication with J.S. while he was incarcerated demonstrated a failure to sever ties with a potentially dangerous environment. The court also highlighted the parents' inconsistent behavior and lack of cooperation with CFS, which contributed to the decision to uphold the removal order.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for child welfare cases involving domestic violence. It underscores the importance of ensuring children's safety in situations where parents may be unable or unwilling to protect them from harm. The court's decision reinforces the idea that a history of domestic violence can lead to the removal of children from their parents, even if the parents demonstrate some willingness to engage in services.

The ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, emphasizing that the courts will prioritize the safety and well-being of children over parental rights when there is evidence of ongoing risk. This case serves as a reminder of the serious consequences that can arise from domestic violence and the responsibilities parents have to provide a safe environment for their children.

What's Next

While the court's ruling is final, the parents may seek further legal options, including potential appeals or modifications to the custody arrangement in the future. The court has ordered reunification services for both parents, allowing them to work towards regaining custody of their children, provided they can demonstrate a significant change in their circumstances and protective capacity.