In re D.W. CA2/5

Filed 7/3/23 In re D.W. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re D.W. et al., Persons Coming B317405 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 21LJJP00070A-C) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tara L. Newman, Judge. Affirmed. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Davion W. (Father) appeals a juvenile court disposition order declining to place his son, D.W., with him after the court removed D.W. from the custody of his mother Antaleen S. (Mother). Father, who was a non-offending parent in the dependency petition but who had just been released from prison on a robbery conviction, argues the juvenile court erred by finding it would be detrimental to place D.W. with him. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s detriment finding.

I. BACKGROUND A. The Investigation and Initial Proceedings In January 2021, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral alleging then 11-year-old D.W. and his four younger siblings1 (who were ten, eight, five, and two at the time) were being neglected. The Department began investigating and filed a dependency petition alleging D.W. and his siblings were at risk of harm from, among other things, the unsanitary and hazardous home where they lived with Mother and her fiancé Jovan M., from Jovan’s abuse of the children, and from Jovan’s substance abuse and mental and emotional problems. In a later amended petition, the Department added additional dependency allegations, including an allegation that Mother failed to protect D.W. from sexual abuse by a maternal uncle. At an initial detention hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from Mother’s custody and D.W. was placed with a