In re Paul M. CA2/4

Filed 10/16/14 In re Paul M. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re Paul M. et al., Persons Coming Under B251989 The Juvenile Court Laws. ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK42835) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, S. Patricia Spear, Judge. Affirmed. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Amir Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

R.M. (mother) appeals the order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.1 She contends new evidence requires a new trial on the jurisdictional finding that her son, Paul M. (born in 1999), sexually abused her daughters, L.P. and E.P. (born in 2006). We disagree and affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY This dependency case has been the subject of two previous opinions. We affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional order in In re Paul M. (Jan. 30, 2013, B240325 [nonpub. opn.] (Paul M. I)). The order terminating mother’s reunification services and returning Paul, but not the twins, to her custody was affirmed in R.M. v. Superior Court (May 14, 2014, B251998 [nonpub. opn.] (R.M.)). Mother commenced the writ proceedings in R.M. and the current appeal simultaneously to challenge rulings made at the same hearing. She filed the bulk of the record in that case and the “balance of record” in this. The parties extensively rely on the record in R.M., and we borrow some of the relevant facts and procedural history from that record and from our prior opinions. In May 2011, a referral was made due to a concern about Paul’s allegedly inappropriate sexual language and behavior. During the subsequent investigation, the twins “reported being hit by both Paul and appellant with various objects, including a hand, a shoe, and a belt. They also stated that Paul had touched their ‘private parts’ and that he made them ‘eat it.’” After the first interview, mother instructed the twins not to talk about sexual contact with their brother. (Paul M. I, supra, at p. 2.) Mother represented herself at the jurisdictional hearing and chose to proceed on documentary evidence alone. The evidence included reports by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and declarations by mother. (Id. at pp. 4–5.) The court sustained DCFS’s amended section 300 petition on several grounds, one of which was based on the alleged sexual abuse of the twins by Paul. (Id. at p. 5.) Mother was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation, and to receive reunification services and