In re R.J. CA5

Filed 10/17/23 In re R.J. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re R.J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F086137 HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD144125 & JD144126) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION MICHAEL J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales Norris, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Alexandria M. Ottoman, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Dependency jurisdiction was taken over Michael J. (father)’s two daughters, R.J. and M.J., as well as their older half sibling, K.H. (mother’s child from a previous relationship), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code,1 section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (d) (sexual abuse). The juvenile court found true allegations, among others, that father had sexually abused K.H. The juvenile court ordered the children removed from the parents’ custody and found the bypass provision set forth in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)—that the children or their sibling had been adjudicated a dependent under section 300 due to severe sexual abuse by the parent, and providing reunification services to the parent would not benefit the children—applied and declined to order family reunification services to father. Father appeals from the dispositional findings and orders, contending that the juvenile court erred by bypassing father for services, specifically that the order was not supported by the evidence. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2022, law enforcement was called out to an elementary school due to a report that K.H., then 12 years old, was threatening to kill other students. K.H. reported to law enforcement that she also wanted to kill father and his mother, her stepgrandmother, as she had witnessed father perpetrating domestic violence against mother, and her stepgrandmother was not a good person. She further disclosed she had thought about killing herself in the past. Law enforcement determined that K.H. posed a danger to herself and others and placed a section 5150 hold on her. As the officer was filling out the form, K.H. told the officer she forgot to tell him something—she said she did not want to get in trouble for saying anything, but father had been touching her