In re Genesis G. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2025 No. B341169Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction because the mother failed to challenge the finding that the father's sexual abuse of one child posed a risk to all three children, which is sufficient to support jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in asserting dependency jurisdiction over the children based on the mother's failure to protect them from sexual abuse.
Whether the juvenile court erred in asserting dependency jurisdiction based on the mother's history of substance abuse.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Jose’s conduct in sexually assaulting Genesis is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over all three children, whether mother failed to protect the children from that abuse “would not affect the girls’ status as dependents of the juvenile court.””

“Because this ground for jurisdiction is sufficient on its own, we need not consider mother’s attacks on the other bases for dependency jurisdiction.”

Filed 7/31/25 In re Genesis G. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re GENESIS G., et al., Persons B341169 Coming Under the Juvenile Court (Los Angeles County Law. Super. Ct. No. 24CCJP02196A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MARIA C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

****** Maria C. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order asserting dependency jurisdiction over her three children. However, because mother does not attack one portion of a sustained allegation that is sufficient by itself to exert jurisdiction over all three children and because the other portion of that allegation is in any event supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the exercise of jurisdiction on that allegation alone. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Family Mother and Horacio G. met in 2007 and separated in 2014. They had two children together—Genesis G. (born 2010), and Martha G. (born 2013). Mother met Jose R.G. in 2016, and they had one child together—Sara (born 2019). Mother and Jose have an on-again, off-again relationship. Mother kicked Jose out of the family home in 2019; they got married in September 2023; and mother filed for divorce prior to the inception of these proceedings. Pursuant to a court order, mother in 2023 had sole physical custody of Genesis and Martha, and joint physical custody of Sara with Jose.

In re Genesis G. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

MARIA C.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief