In re T.G. CA5

Filed 7/9/25 In re T.G. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re T.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F089209 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD146055-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD146056-00)

v. OPINION RICHARD G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales Norris, Judge. Sara Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Richard G., in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Richard G. (appellant) appeals the juvenile court’s orders issued at disposition hearings held on December 18, 2024, and January 15, 2025. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on appellant’s behalf. This court granted appellant leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) Appellant filed a letter brief but failed to make such a showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2024, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) received a referral alleging emotional and sexual abuse by appellant. Appellant was the legal guardian of T.G. and C.O. (collectively, the children). The children’s sibling, L.G., informed law enforcement that she would continue to run away from appellant’s home because she was being emotionally and sexually abused. L.G. claimed appellant, her legal guardian and step great-grandfather, sexually abused her since she was 10 years old. L.G. described incidents where appellant inappropriately touched her and exposed himself to her. Law enforcement placed a protective custody hold on L.G. The children’s great-grandmother and other legal guardian, P.G., stated she was not aware of the reason that L.G. ran away from home. P.G. told law enforcement that L.G. stopped having a good relationship with appellant as she got older. L.G. reportedly wore looser clothing and started to isolate herself in her room. Appellant denied knowing any reason for L.G.’s runaway status, but he claimed other family members were “ ‘[c]oaching’ ” her to say things to prevent her return to the guardians’ home. No further questions were asked of appellant to preserve any evidence, and law enforcement requested that the department refrain from interviewing anyone about the sexual abuse. The children were not initially taken into protective custody because neither of them made allegations of abuse.