In re A.A. CA2/8

Filed 9/21/22 In re A.A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.A. et al., Persons Coming B313354 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos. 19LJJP00760A,B DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed. Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant G.M. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly Emling, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________ A father challenges a juvenile court custody order that had ample evidentiary support and fell within the court’s broad discretion. We affirm. The 2019 dependency petition had allegations against the mother and father of two young girls, then ages five and one. The allegations against the father concerned domestic violence between the parents, sexual abuse of the older child, and untreated mental and emotional problems. The juvenile court detained the children from the father and released them to the mother. The father was jailed and later was released. The court issued a temporary restraining order protecting the mother and children from the father. The investigation by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services produced conflicting evidence from the older child about her father’s conduct. At times the girl reported he did not touch her private parts. Other times she reported the father tickled, rubbed, and photographed her private parts and put his fingers inside her. A detailed overview of the underlying investigation and proceedings is unnecessary due to the nature of the father’s appellate challenge. So we skip to the settlement the parties reached in November 2020. As part of that settlement, the father pleaded no contest to the following amended count: “On prior occasions, the [children’s] father . . . failed to establish appropriate physical boundaries with the [older child]. On prior occasions the father took photos of the child’s genitals. On prior occasions the father slept naked with the children and the [older child] slept naked with the father in the same bed. On