SUMMARY: The Court of Appeal determined that the State failed to prove its claim that “the children [were] likely to be injured without intervention by the juvenile court” after their parents were involved in an altercation, because the state provided no evidence of prior domestic violence, no indication that the parents were unable to provide proper care for the children as a result of this altercation, or that the children “were aware of–or were even at an age that they could comprehend–the incident.”
Ajal and Akur were removed from the home of their mother and Wal, Ajal’s father and Akur’s custodian. The State asserted in count I that “the children lacked proper parental care” by the faults of their mother because she was observed to be intoxicated, unable to provide adequate supervision, and marijuana was found in the home. In count II, the State also asserted that “the children lacked proper parental care” by the faults of their mother and Wal stemming from a domestic altercation between Wal and the children’s mother in the family home.
Based on the mother’s admission of the facts, the children were adjudicated on count I, but disposition was continued until after a hearing count II. During the hearing on count II, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Wal and the children’s mother were involved in a dispute that resulted in a cut on the mother’s hand, and that the children were not present in the home at the time and did not witness the incident. The juvenile court adjudicated the children on count II and Wal appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication on count II and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that although a “juvenile court may properly take jurisdiction of that child, even though the child has not yet been harmed or abused,” there was no evidence presented, in this case, that indicated Wal or the children’s mother had “previously caused harm to any child.” Also, the children were not present during the altercation, and there was “no evidence that they were aware of–or were even at an age that they could comprehend–the incident.” Further, there was “no indication of prior altercations between the parents…[and] no evidence that following the altercation, the children lacked parental care…” No evidence was presented “about precisely how the injury [to the children’s mother] occurred or about the severity of the cut,” and indeed it was never determined that “Wal assaulted the mother.” The limited evidence established only that Wal and the children’s mother argued and that the mother’s hand was cut.
Without evidence of a prior history of domestic violence, or evidence indicating that the “parental conduct [was] likely to recur,” and no indication that the parents were unable to provide proper care for the children as a result of this altercation, the State “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children [were] likely to be injured without intervention by the juvenile court.“