In re G.S. CA2/4

Filed 3/20/25 In re G.S. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re G.S., a Person Coming B338546 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP04031A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

William S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Mark A. Davis, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Before her detention by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), G.S., then 15-years-old, lived with William S., her paternal uncle and legal guardian, and his wife, M.A. (aunt). After initial and amended dependency petitions were filed, William S. moved to dissolve the guardianship. While the motion was pending, G.S. reported that William S. had raped her multiple times. The operative second amended petition alleged that William S. and aunt physically abused G.S. (§ 300, subd. (a)); William S. failed to protect G.S. by engaging in sexual abuse (id., subd. (b)(1)); William S. was unwilling or unable to provide care and supervision based on his request to terminate the guardianship (ibid.); William S. sexually abused G.S. (id., subd. (d)); and there was no provision for G.S.’s support (id., subd. (g)). At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court dismissed certain counts but sustained the counts alleging failure to protect, sexual abuse, and no provision for support, and it declared G.S. a dependent. (Ibid.) The juvenile court terminated the guardianship and excused William S. from further proceedings. William S. appeals from the declaration of dependency and jurisdictional findings and the “[a]llegations against Legal Guardian.” His appointed counsel filed an opening brief stating that she found no arguable issues. (See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843 (Phoenix H.).) Unlike in a criminal case, we have no duty to conduct an independent review of the record in a dependency case when