In re L.E. CA2/6

Filed 6/19/13 In re L.E. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re L.E., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B244880 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J068635) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B.E., the father of L.E., a dependent child (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)),1 appeals orders of the Ventura County Juvenile Court which grant the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) supervision over his custody and visitation of L.E. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) a Court of Appeal decision, which reversed a jurisdictional finding that B.E. engaged in "inappropriate sexual boundaries" with L.E., did not terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction to place limits on B.E.'s custody and visitation rights based on the child's best interests; and 2) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's orders. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

FACTS L.E. was born in September 2002. B.E. is his father. In February 2011, L.E.'s parents divorced and shared custody of L.E. In 2011, L.E.'s mother brought L.E. to a hospital claiming B.E. had sexually assaulted him. The hospital referred the matter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). B.E. told a "hospital social worker" that "he had been naked in front of his son, but had never been inappropriate with him." In March 2011, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging that B.E. sexually abused L.E. "by placing [his] nude body and penis against [L.E.'s] buttocks." Following a detention hearing, "the court found a prima facie case had been established" under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). In April 2011, DCFS filed "an amended section 300 petition," alleging L.E.'s mother had tested positive for drugs which endanger L.E.'s "physical well-being and put him at risk of physical harm." (§ 300, subd (b).) L.E. was placed with his maternal grandmother. The Los Angeles County Juvenile Court held a "contested adjudication trial." In June 2011, the court struck the DCFS sexual abuse allegation. But it sustained the petition against B.E. on the ground that he "exhibited seriously inappropriate behavior and inappropriate sexual boundaries with his child in his home." The court said B.E. "has no problem at all with the fact that he walks around his house, naked." The court found L.E. "was suffering from severe emotional damage, and that there were no reasonable means to protect him without removal from [B.E.'s] custody." B.E. was ordered "to participate in counseling to address 'sexual boundaries.'" On July 13, 2011, B.E. appealed. On October 7, 2011, L.E.'s mother filed a section 388 petition. She alleged that she had enrolled in an "in-patient program in Ventura County" and "the court returned [L.E.] to her care." She requested the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court to transfer jurisdiction "to Ventura county." The court granted the petition and transferred the case to