In re G.L. CA2/2

Filed 1/29/15 In re G.L. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re G.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the B254731 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK02870)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUCIO L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Julie Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minors. ******

Can a juvenile court’s finding that a father sexually molested his daughter provide substantial evidence for removing his younger son from his custody and for refusing unmonitored overnight visits for the younger son and his twin sister? On the facts of this case, we conclude that it can, and affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2013, Lucio L. (father) got into a heated argument with his 16-year- old daughter, G.L., after she threatened to burn down their house. G.L. later told her high school principal that father hit her during the incident. She also reported that he had sexually molested her twice before: (1) by inserting his finger in her vagina when she was between three and five years old; and (2) by putting his hand down her panties while she slept beside him when she was 12 years old. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition against father and Amparo C. (mother) as to G.L. as well as 1 to G.L.’s then-14-year-old fraternal twin siblings, E.L. (son) and E.L. (daughter). The petition asserted jurisdiction and sought removal on the grounds of serious physical harm 2 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a)); failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)); sexual abuse (§ 300, subd. (d)); and abuse of a sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)). The juvenile court detained all three children, and later held an evidentiary hearing as to whether they should be removed. Following that hearing, the court determined that G.L. was the aggressor in the November 2013 incident, but found G.L.’s testimony as to two sexual molestation incidents to be credible and the first incident to have been corroborated by G.L.’s maternal aunt’s testimony. The court sustained the petition under