In re A.A. CA2/1

Filed 10/29/13 In re A.A. CA2/1 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the B240896 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK90652)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.A., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Commissioner. Reversed. Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Timothy M. O‟Crowley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

J.A. (father) appeals from orders declaring his sons Alexis and Jason dependents of the court and removing them from his custody. In our initial opinion we concluded the juvenile court applied an incorrect standard in finding father‟s sons were at substantial risk of being molested by father solely because father molested an unrelated nine-year- 1 old girl. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (d) & (j).) (In re A.A. (2013) B240896, review granted, opinion vacated and cause remanded (S209511) (A.A. I).) Accordingly, we reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remanded the cause for a new trial if the Department of Children and Family Services wished to proceed with the matter. Our Supreme Court granted review of the decision and held the case pending its decision in In re I.J. (S204622), which raised a similar issue. Subsequently the court issued its opinion in In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766 holding that: “[A] father‟s prolonged and egregious sexual abuse of his own child may provide substantial evidence to support a finding that all his children are juvenile court dependents.” (Id. at p. 770.) The court remanded A.A. I to us with directions to “vacate [our] decision and to reconsider the cause in light of In re I.J.” Having done so, we issue this revised opinion in which we reaffirm our reversal of the juvenile court‟s orders. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW When the petition was filed in this case the family consisted of father, his wife (mother), his seven-year-old son Alexis, and his three-year-old son Jason. In addition, mother babysat An. R., an unrelated nine-year-old girl. The relationship between the family and An. R. had existed for years, and she considered Alexis and Jason to be like brothers to her. On several occasions father also exercised caretaker duties as An. R.‟s babysitter, and he treated her like his own daughter. The trial court found jurisdiction over the boys under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d) based on evidence that on October 27, 2011 and prior occasions going back approximately one year father sexually abused An. R. by rubbing his erect penis against 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.