In re K.L. CA2/8

Filed 8/24/23 In re K.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.L., a Person Coming B315137 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County Superior LOS ANGELES COUNTY Court No. 21CCJP01727A DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Affirmed. Law Offices of Arthur J. LaCilento and Arthur J. LaCilento for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ A father challenges jurisdictional findings and a dispositional order stemming from allegations he sexually abused his young daughter. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the findings and order. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. In April 2021, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child, then five years old. The petition detailed incidents of the father’s abuse and claimed the child was at risk of serious physical harm and sexual abuse. The petition also asserted the child’s mother knew or should have known of the father’s abuse but failed to protect the child. The juvenile court sustained the petition and removed the child from the father’s custody in September 2021. The court found credible the child’s consistent statements about the father’s abusive conduct. Recently, the court terminated jurisdiction and entered a custody order awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child and granting the father visitation. We take judicial notice of these orders. We reach the father’s jurisdictional challenge because the court’s findings paved the way for the removal order and could affect future family law proceedings. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276–278 [order remains subject to challenge where it affects parental custody rights or results in dispositional orders that adversely affect a parent].)