In re J.P. CA6

Filed 7/10/23 In re J.P. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.P., a Person Coming Under the H049923 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21-JD-026875)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The parents in this dependency case contend the juvenile court abused its discretion by quashing a subpoena that would have required the six-year-old boy who is the subject of the proceedings to testify at the jurisdictional hearing. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services initiated dependency proceedings after a report of domestic violence between the father and mother in the presence of their six-year-old son, J.P. The father reportedly strangled the mother until she lost consciousness. The Department filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging J.P. was at risk because of domestic violence and the father’s untreated substance abuse issues. J.P. was detained, removed from his

father’s custody, and placed with his mother. He was soon afterward removed from her custody and placed in foster care when the Department learned the father had resumed living in the family home. After a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and ordered reunification services. J.P. continued at his foster placement with both parents allowed supervised visits. Once the mother moved to her own home away from the father, she was allowed unsupervised and eventually overnight visits with J.P. But J.P. told social workers the visits were “very bad.” He said his mother hit him (demonstrating with an open hand) when he misbehaves and had a boyfriend whom she “ ‘kisses all day’ ” and with whom she sometimes fought in front of J.P. Then J.P. told his foster mother he was being sexually abused during the visits. He said his father was back in the house and the parents had intercourse while J.P. was in bed with them, licked J.P.’s private parts, and he did not want to lick his father’s “pino” anymore. When asked what a pino is, J.P. pointed to his penis. He said his father touched him and liked to lick his butt and private parts. In a later interview with a forensic analyst trained in interviewing child sexual abuse victims, J.P. reported that his mother showered with him and would grab his hand and put it on her private parts. In an interview with a police officer, J.P. drew a stick figure showing his mother had touched him in the area between his legs. He said his parents told him not to tell anyone about anything they did and his father said he would stop buying him things if he told anyone. J.P. also spoke with a therapist and described being touched on his private parts. Both parents denied engaging in any such conduct but were arrested and criminally charged. The Department filed a second dependency petition alleging J.P. was at risk because of sexual abuse. A contested jurisdictional hearing was set regarding the new petition. The father’s counsel subpoenaed J.P. to testify at the hearing and J.P.’s counsel moved to quash the subpoena. The juvenile court granted the motion to quash, finding 2