In re I.L. CA2/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2021B309586California3,497 words

Opinion

Opinion

Currey, J.

INTRODUCTION

M.L. (father) appeals from a restraining order entered against him under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 213.5. His sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by including his three children, J.M.L., J.M., and I.L., as protected persons under the restraining order. Specifically, he argues the evidence is insufficient to establish the children’s safety would be in jeopardy unless they were included in the order. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mother and father are the parents of J.M.L., J.M., and I.L., who were six, five, and four years old, respectively, when this case was initiated in May 2020. The parents had been in a relationship for approximately nine years. The children lived in their paternal grandmother’s home with their parents and several other paternal relatives. On April 30, 2020, the parents got into an argument after father noticed mother had received a text message on her Apple Watch. Believing the message was from another man, and that mother was cheating on him, father “became irate.” Their argument escalated into a physical altercation when he picked up a knife with a six-inch serrated blade from the kitchen table and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.