In re R.L. CA2/5

Filed 2/13/26 In re R.L. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.L. et al., B345370

Minors Coming Under the (Los Angeles County Juvenile Court Law. Super. Ct. No. _____________________________ 24CCJP02943A-B) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed.

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

Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** After R.L. (father) molested his then-five-year-old daughter, the juvenile court exerted dependency jurisdiction over the daughter as well as father’s then-eight-year-old son. Father urges that there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction over his son because father’s longstanding history of sexual abuse against minors has thus far been directed only at girls and because father’s conduct in touching his daughter’s vagina was, in his opinion, “relatively minor.” Neither argument is well taken, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. The family Father and D.M. (mother) met in 2015, got married, and divorced in 2019. They share two children together: (1) R.L., a boy born June 2016, and (2) C.L., a girl born September 2018.1 In August 2023, the family court awarded father sole physical custody of R.L. and C.L.