WOODLAND, Calif. — Two Yolo County parents accused in overlapping child endangerment cases were denied judicial diversion Tuesday after a judge ruled the alleged conduct and statutory limits made diversion inappropriate, despite defense arguments that education-based intervention could help preserve the family.
The motion for judicial diversion was filed by Deputy Public Defender Roberto Villa, who argued that diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95 would support rehabilitation without further destabilizing the children’s lives.
The accused parents appeared before Judge Paul Richardson for consideration of the defense request. The charges stem from an incident in which their one-year-old and three-year-old children were allegedly left alone late at night, prompting them to seek help from neighbors after waking to find the parents gone.
In addition to two misdemeanor child endangerment charges, the co-defendants face an infraction involving a third child who accompanied them to a store and was allegedly transported without proper safety restraints.
Shortly after the hearing began, Deputy District Attorney Candance Guthmiller opposed the motion, arguing the accused were ineligible because the charges were tied to domestic violence.
DPD Villa countered that, while the case involves negligent actions, labeling the charges as domestic violence was “a stretch.”
Villa argued judicial diversion would be a beneficial and appropriate response, stating the court should prioritize education and accountability rather than keeping the parents out of work and away from their children.
DDA Guthmiller reiterated her objections, emphasizing that the parents allegedly left two young children unattended at night. She noted that even if they were buying supplies for the children, the behavior constituted clear negligence.
Guthmiller also argued diversion was inappropriate because the accused had previous domestic-related charges, reinforcing her claim that they should be deemed ineligible under diversion restrictions.
After hearing arguments, Judge Richardson denied the motion, ruling the case did not qualify under Penal Code section 1001.95.
The judge stressed the alleged behavior placed the children in a frightening and unsafe situation, and said the improper transportation of the third child further raised concerns about parental judgment and overall child safety.
With the diversion request denied, the case will now proceed through the standard criminal process, beginning with pretrial dates. The case is expected to return to court in early February for a pretrial conference before eventually proceeding to a jury trial.
Although the defense focused on rehabilitation and family preservation, the matter highlighted the complicated legal and ethical questions that arise when child safety concerns intersect with statutory diversion limits. The hearing also underscored broader tensions in the criminal legal system over how courts balance rehabilitation, accountability and protection of vulnerable children.
Ultimately, while the defense argued education-based intervention could strengthen the family unit, the prosecution’s emphasis on legal restrictions and public safety concerns prevailed, guiding Judge Richardson’s decision to deny judicial diversion.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
