In re Maya S. CA2/7

Filed 7/22/14 In re Maya S. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re MAYA S., a Person Coming Under B252723 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK96379 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

A.V., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Losnick, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant. Eva E. Chick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent A.V. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Luis S.

____________________________

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) appeals the juvenile court’s dismissal of a dependency petition concerning Maya S., claiming that the court made a series of erroneous rulings while conducting the hearing on the petition. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.V. is the mother of Maya S., born in 2003, and Luis S. is Maya S.’s father. In 2010, DCFS became involved with the family because of reports that Luis S. had sexually abused A.V.’s two older daughters, I.V. and Amber V., when they were minors. Luis S. admitted to sexually touching both of the older daughters, one when she was 14 years old and one when she was about 18 years old; he also admitted having intercourse with one of the daughters when she was 18 years old. Upon learning of the sexual abuse, A.V. reported it to the police, threw Luis S. out of the family home, and began the process of filing for full custody of Maya S. Maya S. denied any sexual abuse by her father. A.V. agreed not to leave Maya S. alone with her father. Because of A.V.’s actions, DCFS concluded that she could protect Maya S. from any risk of harm and closed the referral. In June 2013, DCFS received a referral alleging that A.V. and Luis S. lived together once more and that Maya S. was often left unsupervised in the swimming pool of the apartment complex where they lived. A.V. initially lied to DCFS, stating that Luis S. did not live in the family apartment; but after DCFS discovered evidence that Luis S. lived there and Maya S. reported that she lived with both her parents, the parents admitted that they lived together. DCFS determined that A.V. had never gone through with the court proceedings to obtain full custody of Maya S. A.V. questioned the credibility of her older daughters because they had given conflicting accounts of the alleged abuse. She acknowledged that it was possible that he had touched them inappropriately, but she believed that he would not abuse his own biological daughter, Maya S. Luis S. had not undergone any treatment relating to sexual abuse.