In re Camille v. CA2/4

Filed 7/23/15 In re Camille V. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CAMILLE V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY B259907 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND (Los Angeles County FAMILY SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. DK07448)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FABIAN V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Timothy Saito, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Fabian V. appeals the juvenile court’s order asserting jurisdiction over his child, Camille V., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), based on a single incident of domestic violence.1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) become involved with the family in July 2014, when Mother alleged that her son Christian, then four, had accused Father of sexual abuse.2 However, Christian did not repeat the accusation when examined by his physician or when questioned by police, and gave conflicting stories to his father, Rolando. When questioned by the caseworker, he stated only that Father had spanked him once with his hand. Christian’s physician observed no evidence of sexual abuse after a physical exam. Mother, Father and other family members reported that Christian had recently begun fabricating events. The allegation was ultimately deemed “inconclusive.” In September 2014, while investigating the sexual abuse allegation, the caseworker learned that four months earlier, on May 9, 2014, Father had been arrested for an incident of domestic violence involving Mother.3 According to the police report, he had hit Mother with the back of his hand while they were arguing about feeding Camille, leaving Mother with a bloody and swollen nose and a 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Camille’s mother, Angelica B. (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. 2 Christian’s father is Rolando O. 3 When initially interviewed by the caseworker, Mother had denied any history of domestic violence between herself and Father. Father did not mention the May 9 incident when asked if he had ever been arrested. When confronted with evidence of the police report, Mother initially denied that anything had happened and claimed she had called police just because she had been upset. After learning of the May 9 incident, the caseworker attempted to schedule a team decision meeting, but Mother and Father refused to cooperate.