Filed 12/29/20 In re M.S. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re M.S., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B304998

 (Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05789)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Affirmed.

John E. Carlson for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for minor M.S.

_______________________________

The juvenile court sustained allegations in a dependency 

petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (b), (d), and (j),1regarding J.S.’s (Father) sexual 

abuse of his former girlfriend’s daughter, L.G., and the resulting 

risk of harm to Father’s biological daughter, M.S. (L.G.’s half 

sibling). The juvenile court also removed M.S. from Father’s 

custody. On appeal, Father challenges the jurisdictional findings 

and the disposition order regarding M.S. on grounds the trial 

court erred (1) in granting L.G.’s motion to quash Father’s 

subpoenas for L.G.’s medical records under the physician-patient 

privilege and excluding, under Evidence Code section 352, 

evidence Father sought to introduce at the adjudication hearing 

that L.G. tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease 

during these proceedings and Father did not; and (2) in denying 

Father’s motion to disqualify the children’s counsel, made after 

the adjudication hearing, on grounds counsel had a conflict of 

interest in representing both L.G. and M.S., and Father did not 

receive a fair hearing as a result.2 We reject Father’s contentions 

and affirm the jurisdictional findings and the disposition order 

regarding M.S., as to Father.

1

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code unless otherwise noted.

2 On appeal, Father does not challenge the sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings. 
3

BACKGROUND

I. The Family

When the Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (DCFS) received the referral in this case in 

September 2019, 15-year-old L.G. lived with her mother, M.R. 

(Mother).3 The whereabouts of L.G.’s biological father, J.G., were 

unknown, and he did not participate in these dependency 

proceedings. Mother and Father shared custody of their then 

five-year-old daughter M.S. under an informal arrangement. 

They had ended their relationship when M.S. was around one 

and a half years old. Up until a year before the referral at issue, 

L.G. sometimes accompanied M.S. when M.S. spent time with 

Father. 

II. The Referral

In August 2019, at the start of her junior year of high 

school, L.G. was assigned an essay about challenges she had 

faced in her life. She wrote in the essay that a former boyfriend 

of Mother sexually abused her, starting when she was 10 years 

old, and culminating in a rape the weekend before her sophomore 

year of high school (August 2018), when she was 14 years old. 

L.G. did not describe the rape or any of the other incidents of 

sexual abuse in her essay.4

On September 3, 2019, about two weeks after L.G. wrote 

the essay, a school counselor interviewed L.G. and filled out a 

3 Mother is not a party to this appeal.

4

L.G. also wrote in the essay about not having her 

biological father in her life and about witnessing domestic 

violence between Mother and a former boyfriend of Mother (not 

Father).
4

Suspected Child Abuse Report form, as a mandated child abuse 

reporter under Penal Code section 11166. On the form, the 

counselor provided the following summary of L.G.’s account of the 

sexual abuse by Father, as provided during the interview: “On

8/11/2018 L[.G.] was laying [o]n the edge of the bed in [Father]’s 

home when L[.G.]’s sister, M[.S.] was also sleeping in. While 

L[.G.] was pretending to be asleep, [Father] touched L[.G.]’s 

buttocks ‘over clothes’ for about 5 min then took of[f] her shorts 

and underwear while he was masturbating. He then proceeded 

to grab L[.G.]’s breast under her shirt. He continued to 

masturbate and ejaculated on her buttocks. Then, he penetrated 

his penis into L[.G.]’s [v]agina. She began to cry and he 

immediately put his and L[.G.]’s shorts back on. He then began 

to rub Vaseline in between L[.G.]’s legs. [Father] then told L[.G.] 

that he was going to kill himself because he was going through a 

hard time. [Father] did not kill himself, instead he took L[.G.] 

and M[.S.] to Disneyland the same day of [the] incident to ease 

the tension. L[.G.] also claims that [Father] began molesting 

[her] in fifth grade and continued th[r]ough the age of 14.” 

Also on September 3, 2019, the school counselor contacted 

DCFS and made a referral regarding L.G.’s account of sexual 

abuse by Father. 

III. DCFS’s Detention Report and Dependency Petition

As stated in DCFS’s Detention Report, prepared on or 

about September 5, 2019, a DCFS social worker contacted Mother 

by telephone and in person on September 3, 2019, the date of the 

referral, and informed her about L.G.’s statements regarding 

sexual abuse by Father. According to the social worker, Mother 

appeared surprised and became tearful. She stated L.G. had not 
5

told her about the abuse. Mother agreed to immediately bring 

L.G. to a DCFS office for an interview. 

When Mother and L.G. arrived at the DCFS office, Mother 

asked to speak privately with the social worker before L.G.’s 

interview. Mother stated L.G. had just disclosed during the drive 

to the office that Father raped her in August 2018. Mother told 

the social worker that she “asked [L.G.] if she bled as she was a 

virgin.” In response to that inquiry, L.G. explained to Mother 

that Father penetrated her anus with his penis. L.G. also told 

Mother that after the incident, Father stated he was very 

depressed about the death of his brother, which had occurred two 

months before the incident. Mother recalled Father’s demeanor 

had changed, and he had appeared depressed, after his brother’s 

death. L.G. also told Mother that after the incident, Father took 

her and M.S. to the bank, to visit his brother’s grave, and then to 

Disneyland. Mother recalled that after the trip to Disneyland, 

L.G. stopped sleeping at Father’s home. Mother explained L.G. 

“was not particularly close to [Father], and would only sleep over 

at the urging of [M.S.]” During the drive to the DCFS office, 

which only lasted a few minutes, L.G. did not disclose to Mother 

any other incidents of sexual abuse.

Mother stated that during the two and a half years she was 

in a relationship with Father, he “spent a significant amount of 

time at her home, but never officially moved in . . . .” He 

“maintained a separate residence with [M.S.’s] paternal 

grandparents,” where he continued to live at the time of the 

referral. Mother told the social worker that L.G. “was left alone 

with [Father] on numerous occasions . . . .” Mother also 

explained that although L.G. stopped visiting with Father in 

August 2018, L.G. continued to have contact with him, up to the 
6

time of the September 3, 2019 referral, because Mother used L.G. 

as a go-between during M.S.’s custody exchanges because Father 

“would make inappropriate comments to [Mother] during the 

child’s [M.S.] exchange.” 

Mother reported Father was “ ‘a good dad to M[.S.],’ ” and 

Mother had no concerns about M.S. (or L.G.) being in Father’s 

custody “until this disclosure.” Mother explained she did have a 

talk with Father several months before, after M.S. told Mother on 

a few different occasions that “she no longer wanted to take a 

‘purple little ball that she had to put under her tongue to make 

her go to sleep’ that was given to her by [Father].” When Mother 

asked Father about it, he stated the pills were vitamins his sister 

had given him. His explanation “did not make any sense” to 

Mother because she knew he and his sister were “not on speaking 

terms.” Mother stated she did not take further action on the 

matter because it had been several months since M.S. mentioned 

the pills.

After speaking with Mother, the social worker interviewed 

L.G. in private. According to the Detention Report, L.G. 

indicated “the allegations [were] accurate as reported.”5 She 

explained she disclosed the rape in the school essay and to a 

friend. She came close to telling Mother about it on two earlier 

occasions, but she could not bring herself to do so. 

5

It is not clear if this statement refers to the report made 

by the school counselor, which described a vaginal penetration, or 

the report made by Mother, which described an anal penetration. 

The Detention Report does not provide a summary of L.G.’s 

statements about the reported rape during this particular 

interview with the social worker.
7

L.G. stated Father “first began to touch her 

inappropriately” when she was around 10 years old and in the 

fifth grade. Sometimes while she was trying to sleep, Father 

would lift her up, “sit her on his genital area,” and push on her 

back so that her body pressed against his genitals. She would 

pretend to be asleep during these encounters because “she was 

terrified and did not know how to react.” L.G. further explained 

that as she “matured,” Father “ ‘wrestled’ with her, and used this 

as an opportunity to ‘press his body against [her,]’ specifically the 

genital areas.” She stated Father “began having erections during 

these encounter[s] as she entered adolescence (approximately 12 

years old).” These incidents occurred in Mother’s home about 

once a week until Mother and Father ended their relationship. 

L.G. reported that Mother was in a different room or at a 

neighbor’s home during these incidents. After Mother and 

Father’s relationship ended, the incidents continued to occur 

when L.G. accompanied M.S. to Father’s home, at M.S.’s urging. 

On at least three such occasions, Father asked L.G. “to change 

from her jeans to his basketball shorts,” telling her “ ‘it was more 

comfortable.’ ” L.G. told the social worker, she “ ‘figured out that 

he could feel more’ ” when she was wearing basketball shorts 

instead of jeans. 

DCFS reported the sexual abuse allegations to law 

enforcement. Two police officers responded to the DCFS office, 

and the officers and the social worker privately interviewed L.G.6 

6

To avoid repetition, we do not summarize here statements 

L.G. made in this interview that are consistent with statements 

she made in her earlier interview with the social worker. We 

summarize additional information L.G. reported in this 

subsequent interview. As discussed below, purported 
8

As set forth in the Detention Report, L.G. explained that during 

the incidents that occurred when she was trying to sleep 

(described above), after Father picked her up, he would “sit her 

on his genital area” or “lay her on him (stomach to stomach).” 

Neither she nor Father said anything during, or had any 

discussion about, these incidents. While Mother and Father were 

in a relationship, these incidents occurred at Mother’s home and 

sometimes at Father’s home. At Mother’s home (a one-bedroom 

apartment), L.G. either slept in the same bed as Mother and 

Father, on the floor of the bedroom, or on the couch (presumably 

in the living room). 

L.G. stated that during the “ ‘wrestling’ ” incidents that 

began when she entered middle school (described above), Father 

“would tell [her] to ‘slap him’ and when she refused, he would 

take her hand and make her slap him on the face.” He also 

pulled her hair during the wrestling incidents. When L.G. “would 

feel [Father] becoming erect” during the wrestling incidents, as 

he “press[ed] his genital area against her genital area,” she 

“would kick him or push him away.” 

L.G. described to the police officers and the social worker 

an incident when she was 13 years old (which would have been 

after Mother and Father’s relationship ended). She stated she 

inconsistencies among L.G.’s various interviews and trial 

testimony, as characterized by Father, are central to Father’s 

contentions on appeal. Thus, with each successive interview and 

L.G.’s trial testimony, we aim to summarize information that is 

in addition to or different from information L.G. provided before 

(as reported by L.G. or those to whom she disclosed the 

information). Some repetition is unavoidable, however, in 

recounting additional or different information regarding the 

incidents of sexual abuse.
9

was lying down with her eyes closed (presumably at Father’s 

home), when Father briefly “touched her under her shirt on top of 

her bra.” 

L.G. also discussed “the referral incident” with the police 

officers and the social worker. L.G. reported the incident 

occurred at Father’s home when she was 14 years old. M.S. had 

asked L.G. to accompany her to Father’s home. They spent the 

night there and were supposed to return to Mother the next 

morning. The three of them slept in Father’s bed, with Father on 

the side of the bed against the wall, four-year-old M.S. in the 

middle, and L.G. on the other side of the bed. 

According to L.S., at around 5:00 a.m., on the morning after 

she spent the night at Father’s home, she woke when Father left 

the bed to go to the bathroom. When he returned, he pushed her 

to determine if she was awake, and she stayed still. Around 10 

minutes later, he picked her up, stating she was “ ‘about to fall off 

the bed,’ ” although she was “nowhere near the edge.” After he 

put her down, L.G. “ ‘moved in towards [her] sister more,’ ” lying 

on her stomach. Father climbed on her back and pulled down her 

jeans and underwear. He masturbated and ejaculated on her 

legs. Then he penetrated her anus with his penis “several times.” 

L.G. cried, as she was “terrified” and “in great pain.” When 

Father “finished, he applied petroleum jelly on her legs and tried 

to pull up her pants while he apologized to her.” L.G. “went to 

the bathroom to clean the fluids off her body as she continued to 

cry.” She stated that her crying woke M.S. and M.S.’s paternal 

grandfather (who, as noted above, lived with Father). M.S. tried 

to comfort L.G. According to L.G., Father was also crying, and he 

was upset that L.G. refused to look at him. He told L.G. “that he 

would kill himself if she ever disclosed” what occurred. 
10

L.G. also reported that later the same morning, Father took 

her and M.S. to the bank, and showed them a bank statement. 

He told L.G. that all the money in his accounts was for her and 

M.S. Then, Father took the girls to his brother’s grave. 

Thereafter, he asked them what they wanted to do. M.S. said she 

wanted to go to Disneyland. L.G. agreed to go to Disneyland 

because she “did not want to leave M[.S.] alone with [Father], 

after what he had done to her [L.G.]” After the Disneyland trip, 

L.G. stopped visiting Father, and she “attempted to limit the 

amount of contact she had with him.” 

L.G. stated she did not seek medical treatment after Father 

anally penetrated her. She reported that “for at least a week or 

more, she was depressed and had feelings of loss of pleasure in 

things she once enjoyed, difficulty sleeping, etc.” She told the 

officers and social worker that she was interested in going to 

therapy to address the sexual abuse.7

On September 4, 2019, the day after Mother’s and L.G.’s 

interviews, a DCFS social worker interviewed Father. He denied 

sexually abusing L.G. (or M.S.). He referred to L.G. as his 

stepdaughter. He stated L.G. “would come over to his house with 

her sister M[.S.] and spend the night and [the] girls would sleep 

on the bed and he would ‘sleep on the floor.’ ” He lived in a twobedroom apartment. He explained M.S.’s paternal grandfather 

slept in the other bedroom, “so he would share the room with the 

girls when they came over.” He said he could not recall the last 

time L.G. slept at his apartment, but he knew “ ‘it was a while 

7

Soon thereafter, L.G. began counseling, and she continued 

to attend throughout the course of these proceedings.
11

ago.’ ” He reported he continued to see M.S. every other 

weekend.

On September 6, 2019, DCFS filed a dependency petition 

under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j), alleging Father’s 

sexual abuse of L.G. endangered L.G. and placed M.S. at risk of 

harm.8 DCFS did not detain L.G. or M.S. from Mother, but 

detained M.S. from Father. 

At the September 9, 2019 detention hearing, the juvenile 

court found DCFS made a prima facie showing that L.G. and 

M.S. were persons described by section 300. The court ordered 

M.S. detained from Father, and L.G. and M.S. to remain released 

to Mother. The court ordered monitored visitation between 

Father and M.S. and required Father to stay at least 100 yards 

away from L.G. The court also ordered DCFS to obtain medical 

services for both girls at a Medical Hub Clinic. 

IV. Forensic Interview of L.G.

On September 11, 2019, about a week after her interviews 

with the police officers and the social worker, L.G. submitted to a 

forensic interview conducted by the USC Child Interviewing Lab. 

The juvenile court admitted the DVD and transcript of the 

interview into evidence at the February 3, 2020 adjudication 

hearing (along with all reports DCFS had submitted up to that 

point). 

L.G. stated that the incidents of molestation by Father 

began during the second semester of fifth grade, when she was 

8

The petition also included an allegation about Father’s 

alcohol use, based on Mother’s statements to the social worker 

(not described herein). The juvenile court later dismissed that 

allegation at the adjudication hearing, finding DCFS did not 

meet its burden of proof as to that allegation. 
12

nine years old. The first incident of Father picking her up and 

placing her on top of him occurred in Mother’s bedroom, when she 

was trying to fall asleep in Mother’s bed. After five to eight 

minutes of Father pressing down on her lower back, causing her 

body to rub against his penis, he moved her back onto the bed. A 

few minutes later, he left the room. Neither of them spoke 

during the incident. L.G. stated her eyes filled with tears after 

Father left the room because she did not want him to touch her 

like that. 

L.G. explained that the incidents of Father picking her up 

and placing her on top of him always occurred in her Mother’s 

bed. She described one such incident that occurred while there 

was a party going on in the living room for Mother’s birthday, 

and her younger cousin was on the floor of Mother’s bedroom 

during the incident. 

During this interview, L.G. described an additional incident 

of molestation—a “wrestling” incident—that she stated occurred 

at Father’s home the night before Father anally penetrated her. 

Although she told the police officers and the social worker about 

wrestling incidents with Father, as set forth above, she did not 

tell them about this particular wrestling incident. L.G. stated 

she and M.S. were on the couch in Father’s apartment. M.S.’s 

paternal grandfather was not yet home. Father “pinned [L.G.’s] 

arms down” and “taunt[ed]” her, stating he was stronger than she 

was. She “tried to push up, but [she] couldn’t.” He rubbed his 

penis against her vagina. She pushed him with her legs, and he 

moved off her. 

L.G. stated this same type of wrestling incident had 

occurred around 10 to 15 times. She explained, “I would like say 

like that I was stronger than him or that I could like beat him up 
13

or whatever, and then he’d say that he was stronger than me, 

and that I couldn’t get up because he was pushing down on me, 

and then he continued that and then he’d grind up against 

me . . . .” She also stated Father would sometimes ask her to slap 

him, and if she did not, he would grab her wrist and cause her to 

slap him (as she had relayed to the police officers and the social 

worker). She added that Father would also sometimes put his 

mouth on her ear, “kind of nibbling on it.” If she felt that 

Father’s penis was erect during these incidents, she would use 

her legs to push him off her.

L.G. told the interviewer about sleeping in bed with Father 

and M.S. the night before the final incident of sexual abuse. She 

stated she was sleeping on her stomach, and Father would climb 

over her and rub his body against hers each time he exited or 

came back to bed. She woke around 5:00 a.m. About 30 minutes 

later, Father climbed onto her back and began rubbing his penis 

against her buttocks. She heard him take off his basketball 

shorts and then his underwear. He rubbed his penis against her 

buttocks a few more times. Then he began masturbating. He 

took off the basketball shorts he had given her to wear, and then 

he pulled down her underwear. He touched her vagina with his 

finger. He rubbed his penis against her buttocks and vagina, 

skin-to-skin. He grabbed her breasts under her shirt and bra. 

Then he penetrated her anus with his penis for a few seconds. 

She cried in pain, and he stopped and climbed off her. At some 

point prior to the penetration, he ejaculated onto her buttocks, 

legs, and back. 

L.G. stated that after Father climbed off her, he “pulled up 

[her] underwear really quick.” Then he put Vaseline on her legs 

and lower back. He told her to “stop crying” and “calm down” so 
14

she would not wake M.S. and M.S.’s paternal grandfather. She 

continued to cry. M.S. woke up and started rubbing L.G.’s arm. 

Then M.S. used either her hand, a napkin, or a wipe to rub L.G.’s 

lower back. Father continued to put Vaseline on the back of 

L.G.’s legs. M.S.’s paternal grandfather entered the room “and 

asked what was wrong.” Father said something in Spanish that 

L.G. could not recall. The paternal grandfather responded, “oh 

ok,” and left the room, closing the door. Father told L.G. and 

M.S. to get ready to leave. L.G. got dressed, helped M.S. get 

dressed, and they went to the car. L.G. stated she was still 

crying when they went to the car. 

As L.G. was starting to tell the interviewer about their trip 

to the bank, she stated: “Oh wait I missed a part that he told me. 

We were still in the, we’re still in the room and I was still crying. 

He kept telling me to look up at him and he said he was gonna 

kill himself and that he didn’t need to do it because he was just 

depressed over his brother’s death []. And he told me, he told me 

that he was sorry a few times. He told me to look up at him a 

bunch of times and told me he was gonna kill himself like five 

times.”9

9 We include this deviation in L.G.’s chronology of events 

because Father highlights it in support of his argument that 

counsel for L.G. and M.S. could not effectively represent M.S. 

without challenging “conflicts” or “discrepancies” in L.G.’s 

accounts of the events, which Father claims that counsel did not 

do because she had an actual conflict of interest in representing 

both children. As explained below, we conclude the juvenile court 

did not err in concluding there was no actual conflict of interest 

in counsel’s representation of L.G. and M.S. 
15

L.G. resumed telling the interviewer about the trip to the 

bank. She stated that when Father returned to the car after 

going to the bank, he showed her and M.S. a document on his 

phone, and he pointed to a number on it. He told them “all that 

money that was there” was for her and M.S. to use when they 

went to college. Then he asked them what they wanted to do. 

L.G. did not answer. M.S. told him she wanted to go to 

Disneyland. He said he would take them to Disneyland, but first 

he took them to his brother’s grave. Thereafter, he took them to 

Disneyland, “and he pretended like nothing ever happened that 

day.” L.G. stated her body was still in pain when they went to 

Disneyland. A few months later, she told her friend that Father 

had raped her.

V. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

As set forth in DCFS’s October 21, 2019 

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, during a September 30, 2019 

interview with a DCFS dependency investigator, L.G. stated that 

after Father sodomized her and put Vaseline on her, he gave M.S. 

“a wet wipe” that M.S. used to wipe L.G.’s back. In the report, 

DCFS characterized L.G.’s statements regarding Father’s sexual 

abuse as “consistent.” 

The dependency investigator also interviewed Mother on 

September 30, 2019. DCFS wrote in the Jurisdiction/Disposition 

Report: “Mother also indicated that M[.S.] told her once that her 

‘daddy would put a “pica” on the back of L[.G.]’s legs.’ In Spanish 

pica means bite or prick. M[.S.] also told her that she had taken 

a wipe and wiped off something from L[.G.]’s leg. Mother stated 

that M[.S.] told her this shortly after the incident where [Father] 

allegedly abused L[.G.].” 
16

On October 3, 2019, the dependency investigator 

interviewed M.S.’s paternal grandfather, who stated he did not 

believe the allegations against Father were true. He indicated 

Father had always treated L.G. like a daughter. DCFS wrote in 

the Jurisdiction/Disposition report: “He [the paternal 

grandfather] did state that on the night in question he did come 

into [F]ather’s room because their bathrooms were adjacent to 

each other and he heard that [F]ather was awake. He stated that 

he remembers [F]ather and M[.S.] were sleeping on the bed and 

that L[.G.] was sleeping on the floor. He stated he does not 

remember saying anything to [F]ather and does not believe L[.G.] 

was crying at the time which is why he did not ask her any 

questions.” 

DCFS reported in the Jurisdiction/Disposition report that 

Father’s visits with M.S., which were monitored by M.S.’s 

maternal grandmother, were going well. DCFS recommended the 

juvenile court order reunification services for Father. 

VI. Pre-Trial Submissions and Motions

On October 18, 2019, Father filed written objections to 

L.G.’s statements in DCFS’s reports, the police report, and the 

school essay on hearsay grounds.10 (§ 355.) 

In a Last Minute Information for the Court, dated 

December 12, 2019, DCFS reported Father was arrested for the 

10 Father also objected on the same grounds to witness 

statements that we have not referenced in this opinion because 

the juvenile court sustained the objections at the February 3, 

2020 adjudication hearing.
17

sexual abuse of L.G., and he was currently out on bail.11 DCFS 

also stated Father had completed a parenting class. 

In an amended witness list for the adjudication hearing, 

filed January 24, 2020, Father indicated he planned to call, 

among other witnesses, two doctors who would testify about 

L.G.’s positive test results for a sexually transmitted disease, 

another doctor who would testify about Father’s negative test 

results for a sexually transmitted disease, and L.G.’s school 

counselor who would testify about L.G.’s statements regarding 

the sexual abuse.12 Father had served subpoenas for attendance 

at trial and for production of documents on the two doctors who 

had treated L.G., seeking all medical records from January 1, 

2018 to the present, and on the school counselor, seeking records 

of all therapeutic services. 

On January 29, 2020, counsel for L.G. and M.S. filed on 

behalf of L.G. a motion to quash the subpoenas directed to the 

two doctors who had treated L.G., as well as the subpoena 

directed to L.G.’s school counselor. Counsel argued in the motion 

(1) that Father failed to properly serve the subpoenas on L.G., 

and (2) that the subpoenas sought records protected by the 

physician-patient privilege. 

In a Last Minute Information for the Court, dated 

February 3, 2020, DCFS reported on statements M.S. made to 

her therapist, about two weeks before her sixth birthday, 

11 The outcome or status of Father’s criminal case is not 

clear from the record.

12 All of these medical tests were conducted more than a 

year after the last incident of sexual abuse occurred, according to 

L.G.’s statements.
18

regarding the events of August 11, 2018 (the date of the reported 

rape), when she was four and a half years old. DCFS stated in 

the Last Minute Information for the Court: “[The social worker] 

asked for [the therapist] to relay what happened during the 

session. [The therapist] stated that she started talking with 

M[.S.] about her missing her dad. [The therapist] explored if she 

understands why she can’t see her dad every day. M[.S.] 

reported that she understands her dad did something bad to her 

sister. [The therapist] inquired as to what [F]ather did. M[.S.] 

reported that she was visiting at her dad’s house and L[.G.] was 

there. M[.S.] reported that she remembers that she was sleeping 

and when she woke up she saw L[.G.] crying. M[.S.] stated that 

she also saw ‘pica’ on L[.G.]’s back. [The therapist] was not able 

to get clarification as to what ‘pica’ was. M[.S.] reported that she 

helped L[.G.] by wiping it off her back. [The therapist] inquired 

where [F]ather was at this time. M[.S.] reported that her dad 

was in the room. M[.S.] reported that she saw her dad wearing 

pajama shorts. M[.S.] stated that she didn’t see anything 

physically happen to L[.G.] M[.S.] disclosed feeling scared. She 

had no other concerns. M[.S.] has expressed being happy and 

wants to sleep.” 

VII. Adjudication

A. Evidentiary rulings

At the outset of the February 3, 2020 adjudication hearing, 

the juvenile court overruled Father’s hearsay objections to L.G.’s 

statements in DCFS’s reports, the police report, and the school 

essay, as L.G. was present in court as a witness for DCFS and 

available for cross-examination by Father’s counsel. 

Thereafter, the juvenile court heard oral argument on 

L.G.’s motion to quash the subpoenas directed to her two treating 
19

physicians and to her school counselor. Father’s counsel argued 

the juvenile court should deny the motion to quash as to the two 

doctors because L.G. waived the physician-patient privilege by 

failing to object when DCFS distributed to all parties its 

Delivered Service Log or “Title XX’s,” which disclosed L.G. tested 

positive for Chlamydia (a sexually transmitted disease) at a 

medical evaluation conducted at a Medical Hub Clinic after 

DCFS filed the dependency petition in this case (more than a 

year after the last reported incident of sexual abuse). Father’s 

counsel stated Father was “prepared as well to put [his] medical 

records before the court to demonstrate that he does not have 

Chlamydia, and he could not have given [L.G.] Chlamydia.” 

Father’s counsel argued evidence of L.G.’s positive test 

result for a sexually transmitted disease was relevant to these 

proceedings because L.G. denied engaging in sexual activity with 

anyone other than Father, as set forth in DCFS’s Delivered 

Service Log, and her positive test result for a sexually 

transmitted disease demonstrates “she’s being deceitful to the 

Department [DCFS] and to her mother.” Counsel further argued, 

if L.G. “has manifestations” of the infection, she “knew about the 

Chlamydia. She maybe was even told by somebody else that they 

had given her Chlamydia. This child had to find a scapegoat. 

And the person that was most easily a scapegoat to her was a 

person that her mother does not like at all. And that is a reason 

for her to blame my client -- among other things -- but to blame 

my client to get the focus off of her and how she has apparently 

become sexually active and to blame somebody else for the reason 

she got Chlamydia.” 

The juvenile court granted L.G.’s motion to quash the 

subpoenas seeking her medical records. The court concluded L.G. 
20

did not waive her physician-patient privilege because she did not 

put her medical condition at issue in these proceedings, so the 

patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege did 

not apply. The court did not reach the other ground on which the 

motion to quash was based—that service of the subpoenas on 

L.G. was improper. 

The juvenile court also excluded under Evidence Code 

section 352 all evidence of L.G. testing positive for Chlamydia 

(including witness testimony), as well as evidence Father sought 

to admit that he “does not have Chlamydia, never had 

Chlamydia, and has never been prescribed the medication that is 

needed to treat Chlamydia.” The court found the “probative 

value of [L.G.] testing positive for Chlamydia or not, the 

probative value of her being sexually active with anyone but 

[Father] or not[,] is of limited probative value,” and such evidence 

“is substantially outweighed by the likelihood of undue 

prejudice.”13

13 The juvenile court deferred its ruling on L.G.’s motion to 

quash the subpoena directed to L.G.’s school counselor (which 

sought records of all therapeutic services provided to L.G.) until 

the court had an opportunity to review the documents the 

counselor brought to court in response to the subpoena. During 

the second day of the adjudication hearing, on February 4, 2020, 

the court admitted into evidence the Suspected Child Abuse 

Report form the school counselor prepared (referenced above) and 

excluded other documents the counselor brought to court in

response to the subpoena. 
21

B. Witness testimony

1. L.G.

On February 3, 2019, the first day of the adjudication 

hearing, L.G. and M.S.’s counsel called L.G. as a witness. L.G. 

testified in chambers, with all counsel present. She discussed the 

various incidents of sexual abuse she had disclosed before, 

beginning with the rape.14 L.G. testified that when M.S. woke 

after the incident and asked what was wrong with L.G., Father 

told M.S. “he put pica stuff on [L.G.]’s back.” L.G.’s 

understanding was that “pica stuff” meant something that 

burned. M.S. climbed off the bed and went to get a wipe to clean 

the stuff off L.G.’s back. 

L.G. testified that the wrestling incident at Father’s home 

on August 10, 2018 happened on the bed in Father’s bedroom 

(and not on the couch as she had stated in her forensic interview). 

She added that the incident began when Father came to the bed, 

where she was lying, and gave her a hug and then told her he 

loved her. She stated she spent the night at Father’s home on 

three occasions and a wrestling incident occurred on each of those 

three occasions. 

Father’s counsel asked L.G. if she tested positive for 

Chlamydia, and the trial court sustained the other parties’ 

objections under Evidence Code section 352, consistent with the 

court’s prior ruling. 

14 We do not summarize here all of L.G.’s testimony about 

the various incidents of sexual abuse, as we have described her 

statements about these incidents above. We highlight here 

additional or different information in L.G.’s testimony.
22

2. Mother

On February 4, 2019, the second day of the adjudication 

hearing, L.G. and M.S.’s counsel called Mother as a witness. 

During direct examination, Mother testified about the informal 

custody arrangement regarding M.S. that she and Father 

established around two years before the adjudication hearing. 

Mother explained she and Father shared custody of M.S. during 

the week and alternated weekends with her. When it was a 

parent’s turn to have M.S. for the weekend, M.S. spent Friday 

night at that parent’s home. The schedule was flexible, and 

Mother and Father would deviate from the schedule to 

accommodate each other. 

During cross-examination by Father’s counsel, Mother 

acknowledged that on occasion, Father picked up M.S. from 

Mother at 5:00 a.m., due to Mother’s early work schedule. 

Father’s counsel showed Mother a series of text messages 

between Mother and Father, indicating Father either picked up 

M.S. from Mother, or dropped off M.S. to Mother, at around 5:00 

a.m. on various dates not connected with the events at issue in 

this case. Mother authenticated these text messages, and the 

juvenile court admitted them into evidence. 

Father’s counsel also showed Mother a series of text 

messages between Mother and Father, beginning on August 8, 

2018, the Wednesday before the referral incident (the reported 

rape). On Friday, August 10, 2018, at 3:22 p.m., Father texted 

Mother: “I missed your call[.] What’s up? I’ve asked you 

multiple times to please not curse at me in front of M[.S.] . . .” 

Mother authenticated these text messages, and the juvenile court 

admitted them into evidence. 
23

The next page of text messages Father’s counsel showed 

Mother did not show a date indicating when the text messages 

were sent or received, but Father’s counsel argued the messages 

were a continuation of the conversation that began at 3:22 p.m. 

on August 10, 2018 (as set forth above). Father asserts these text 

messages, which we quote below, demonstrate L.G. and M.S. 

spent the night with Mother on August 10, 2018, and Father 

picked them up at 5:00 a.m. on August 11, 2018, the day he took 

them to Disneyland. Thus, he argues L.G. was lying when she 

stated/testified that she and M.S. spent the night at Father’s 

home the night before the reported rape.

Father texted Mother: “You telling me ‘Fu** [sic] you keep 

you [sic] days’ isn’t cool to say to me in front of M[.S.]” Mother 

responded with a text, stating: “Stop texting me . . . . . [sic] Pick 

up M[.S.] at 5 am tomorrow at 5 a.m. on Monday tomorrow [sic] 

at 5 a.m. on Monday morning tomorrow [sic] and 5 a.m. on 

Monday morning.” Father then stated: “I just called you to 

clarify the schedule because me picking up M[.S.] at 5am seems 

like she’s very tired.” Mother responded: “Please stop texting 

me[.] [I]t’s my day with M[.S.] and I want to spend my time with 

her[,] not waste my time talking to you. . . . (Ellipses in original.) 

Father replied: “So if I’m bothering you on your day with M[.S.] 

by communicating with you about her schedule, please do the 

same on my days with her. Thank you on the agreement.” The 

next text message in the series showed a date of August 11, 2018, 

and a time of 3:21 p.m. The message was from Father to Mother, 

stating: “Would you like me to drop off the girls at your mom[’]s 

house?” Then, at 6:32 p.m. on August 11, 2018, Father texted 

Mother pictures of M.S. and L.G. at Disneyland. Based on 
24

Mother’s testimony regarding these text messages, the juvenile 

court admitted them into evidence. 

During examination by her own counsel, Mother testified 

Father never picked up M.S. from her at 5:00 a.m. on a weekend 

day; he only picked up M.S. at 5:00 a.m. on weekdays when she 

worked. She stated Father picked up M.S. and L.G. at night on 

August 10, 2018, and the girls spent the night with him on 

August 10, 2018 and went to Disneyland with him on August 11, 

2018. 

During examination by counsel for L.G. and M.S., Mother 

stated she did not remember what she meant when she texted 

Father: “Pick up M[.S.] at 5 am tomorrow at 5 a.m. on Monday 

tomorrow [sic] at 5 a.m. on Monday morning tomorrow [sic] and 5 

a.m. on Monday morning.” Her first interpretation was that she 

was telling Father to pick up M.S. at 5:00 a.m. on Monday (not 

Saturday, August 11, 2018). But then she stated she could not 

remember. 

3. Vanessa L.

On February 4, 2020, Father called his friend, Vanessa L., 

as a witness. She stated she and Father were together at a 

friend’s home on the night of August 10, 2018. She testified she 

had a time-stamped video reflecting she and Father were 

together “[p]ast 11:00” p.m. on that night. Father’s counsel did 

not present a video during (or at anytime after) the adjudication 

hearing.

During cross-examination by DCFS’s counsel, Vanessa 

testified she arrived at the friend’s house around 9:30 p.m., and 

Father arrived at the friend’s house sometime thereafter. 

According to Vanessa, Father left the friend’s house sometime 

after 11:00 p.m. on August 10, 2018. 
25

4. Evelyn S.

On February 4, 2020, Father called his sister, Evelyn S. as 

a witness. She testified she made a phone call to Father between 

10:00 and 11:00 p.m. on August 10, 2018. He told her he was at 

his friend Vanessa’s house. She asked Father during the call: 

“Why are you out so late? Aren’t you going to take the girls to 

Disneyland the next day?” Father responded he was “just 

hanging out with friends,” and he “was going to go home later 

on.” According to Evelyn, Father explained during the call that 

he was originally supposed to pick up M.S. and L.G. from Mother 

at 8:00 a.m. on August 11, 2018, but he and Mother “had 

switched it to 5:00 a.m.” 

5. Jose S.

On February 4, 2020, Father called M.S.’s paternal 

grandfather, Jose S., as a witness. He testified with the 

assistance of a Spanish language interpreter. He stated during 

direct examination that on the morning of August 11, 2018—the 

date of the reported rape—he woke at 6:00 a.m., as he always did 

on Saturday mornings. As he walked to the bathroom, he noticed 

the door to Father’s bedroom was open, as it usually was. When 

he exited the bathroom, he looked into Father’s bedroom and 

observed Father lying on the floor with M.S.; L.G. was lying in 

the bed. No one was crying, and he had not heard anyone crying 

that morning. No one in Father’s bedroom was asleep. The 

paternal grandfather recalled that when he looked into Father’s 

bedroom that morning, he said something to M.S. in Spanish, as 

he was trying to teach her to speak Spanish. 

The paternal grandfather also testified during direct 

examination that Mother was not “allowed to come up” to 

Father’s apartment because she “had bad communication with 
26

[Father] all the time.” He further testified that he had observed 

Mother yelling at Father “in a rage” in front of L.G. “[m]any 

times.” 

Also during direct examination, the paternal grandfather 

stated the social worker who interviewed him in preparation of 

the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, interviewed him in English 

and did not review his statement with him. On crossexamination by Mother’s counsel, the paternal grandfather 

reiterated he saw Father, L.G., and M.S. in Father’s bedroom on 

the morning of August 11, 2018, even though the 

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report indicates he saw the trio in 

Father’s bedroom at night. 

C. Jurisdictional Findings

On February 4, 2019, the second day of the adjudication 

hearing, after the close of evidence, the juvenile court heard oral 

argument on jurisdiction. Counsel for L.G. and M.S. urged the 

court to sustain allegations b-1, d-1, and j-1 regarding Father’s 

sexual abuse of L.G. and the resulting risk of harm to M.S., 

arguing:

“I think this comes down to an evaluation of credibility. On 

the one hand we have L[.G.] giving vivid, consistent descriptions 

of a rape and molestation. They were consistent to her 

statements to the social worker, her essay, her forensic interview. 

We all saw her in-camera testimony.

“On the other hand, we have testimony from Father’s 

friend, Father’s sister, Father’s father with oddly specific 

recollections of a date that occurred 17 months ago. The text 

messages, which were admitted into evidence, . . . I will point out 

that all of the text communications describing a 5:00 a.m. pick up 

or drop off of M[.S.] occurred on a weekday, save for Father’s 
27

[exhibit] 15 [the undated page of text messages referenced above], 

in which we have garbled run-on sentences from Mother, [that] to 

me, read like continuation of an ongoing argument.

“It’s clear that they [Mother and Father] had a fairly good 

relationship, actually, based on the tenor of these text 

message[s]. It’s notable that the parents have an informal 

parenting agreement. I think we have all seen, if their 

relationship was so contentious, that it would cause L[.G.] to 

manufacture a rape and molestation allegation to vindicate her 

mother, there would have been a paternity order involved.

“I think L[.G.]’s in-camera testimony was very descriptive 

and should provide the basis for the allegation[s].”15

Father’s counsel argued next.16 His argument was lengthy. 

He did not assert there was a potential or an actual conflict of 

interest in counsel for L.S. and M.S. representing both children—

one of his contentions now on appeal—and he had not yet made 

15 We do not address the parties’ arguments regarding 

allegation b-2 regarding Father’s alcohol use because the juvenile 

court dismissed that allegation at the conclusion of the 

adjudication hearing, and the allegation is not at issue on appeal. 

16 Father’s counsel requested a continuance of the 

adjudication hearing, so he could prepare for argument, stating: 

“I wanted to play a few of the parts of the taped video recording 

[from L.G.’s forensic interview], and I wanted to have this 

prepared to show the court, and I don’t. And I was hoping to 

have an opportunity to go through all the testimony and do the 

compare and contrast and represent my client effectively.” The 

juvenile court denied Father’s request, stating it had watched the 

video recording, reviewed the documentary evidence, and heard 

the testimony. Father does not challenge the ruling on appeal.
28

such an assertion up to this point in the dependency proceedings 

below. At the beginning of his argument, Father’s counsel noted 

L.G. is “a young girl who doesn’t have a father, who sees her 

sister who has a very active father.” Counsel also described L.G. 

as “a troubled girl,” who may be “jealous of her sister.” Counsel 

described L.G.’s “story” as “ridiculous,” stating the incidents of 

molestation sounded like something that would occur between 

high school or junior high school kids. He argued at length that 

L.G.’s various accounts of the sexual abuse—to the police officers 

and social worker, the forensic interviewer, and during her trial 

testimony—were inconsistent, asserting, “[t]here’s three separate 

stories about what happened.” Next, Father’s counsel argued the 

evidence Father presented (the text messages and witness 

testimony from his friend, sister, and father) demonstrated L.G. 

and M.S. did not spend the night at Father’s home on August 10, 

2018, so L.G.’s “story” about a rape at his home in the early 

morning on August 11, 2018, “doesn’t make sense.” He concluded 

his argument by stating: “It didn’t happen. This man [Father] 

loves M[.S.] to death. He has a fantastic relationship with her, 

and the worst thing that can happen for M[.S.] is for that 

relationship to be impaired by a lie. And the court should protect 

M[.S.]” 

Mother’s counsel urged the juvenile court to sustain the 

sexual abuse allegations against Father, stating Mother “fully 

believes her daughter [L.G.]” Mother’s counsel highlighted M.S.’s 

statement that she helped L.G. wipe something off L.G.’s back as 

evidence corroborating L.G.’s account of the rape. Mother’s 

counsel also asserted Father’s argument—that a rape could not 

have happened the morning of August 11, 2018 because L.G. and 

M.S. did not spend the night at Father’s home on August 10, 
29

2018—fails because (1) M.S.’s paternal grandfather told the social 

worker he saw the girls in Father’s room “on the night in 

question,” as set forth in the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, and 

(2) even if the girls did not sleep at Father’s home on August 10, 

2018, the rape could have happened the morning of August 11, 

2018, based on the paternal grandfather’s trial testimony that he 

saw Father, L.G., and M.S. lying down in Father’s bedroom in the 

early morning on August 11, 2018. 

DCFS’s counsel joined in the arguments of counsel for L.G. 

and M.S., and argued L.G. was “consistent in her statements,” 

and L.G.’s testimony was “more credible than the contrary 

statements.” In addressing the risk of harm to M.S., DCFS’s 

counsel noted (1) some of the incidents of sexual abuse occurred 

while M.S. was present in the same room, and (2) Father “always 

treated [L.G.] like a daughter,” according to M.S.’s paternal 

grandfather. 

 The juvenile court dismissed allegation b-2 regarding 

Father’s alcohol use and sustained allegations b-1, d-1, and j-1 as 

follows: “On numerous prior occasions, . . . [Father] sexually 

abused the child L[.G.], between the ages of ten through fourteen. 

On a prior occasion [Father] raped the child L[.G.], while the 

child M[.S.] was in the same bed. On prior occasions, [Father] 

penetrated the child’s anus with [his] penis, resulting in the child 

feeling pain. On prior occasions, [Father] forced the child to slap 

[him]. On prior occasions, [Father] pulled the child’s hair. On 

prior occasions, [Father] ejaculated on the child’s legs. On prior 

occasions, [Father] rubbed [his] penis against the child. [Father] 

forced the child to sit on [his] penis while applying pressure on 

the child’s buttocks. On prior occasions, [Father] wrestled with 

the child and pressed [his] erect penis against the child’s body. 
30

On prior occasions, [Father] pressed against the child’s buttocks 

with [his] penis, rubbed [his] penis against the child’s vagina and 

grabbed the child’s buttocks with [his] hands. On a prior 

occasion, [Father] forcefully removed the child’s clothing, 

masturbated in the presence of the child and placed [his] erect 

penis on the child’s legs. [Father] threatened to kill himself if the 

child disclosed the sexual abuse. Such sexual abuse of the child 

L[.G.] by [Father] endangers the child’s physical health, safety 

and well-being and places child and the child’s sibling M[.S.] at 

risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger and sexual abuse.” 

In sustaining the allegations, the juvenile court 

commented: “I think L[.G.]’s statements are credible. I found her 

testimony credible in chambers. She testified with an affect that 

demonstrates to the court that she was telling the truth about 

the sexual assault, about the sexual molestation. And I believe 

her. I found her credible. And her statements overall to law 

enforcement, to the social worker, to the court[,] during the 

forensic interview, all had themes and strands that were entirely 

consistent. [¶] Now, it’s certainly true that there were some 

discrepancies, but I don’t think that takes away from her 

credibility, after the court had the opportunity to view her and 

observe her while she testified.”

Addressing the risk of harm to M[.S.] the juvenile court 

stated: “L[.G.] testified that the molestation began when she was 

nine, and she was in fifth grade. She made a point that it began 

to escalate when she started to develop breasts, which means 

that she was prepubescent. M[.S.] is prepubescent. Also 

[Father]’s father testified that [Father] always treated L[.G.] like 

a daughter. Thereby, putting M[.S.] at risk because M[.S.] is 

[Father]’s biological daughter. [¶] Also, the court finds true that 
31

some of the sexual abuse, including the most recent episode or 

incident that L[.G.] described, occurred in the presence of M[.S.] 

as well. Thereby placing her at risk as well.” 

The juvenile court continued the matter to February 13, 

2020 for disposition. 

VIII. Post-Adjudication Motions and Report

On February 11, 2020, a week after the adjudication 

hearing and two days before the disposition hearing, Father filed 

a section 388 petition, requesting the juvenile court “rescind” its 

jurisdictional findings. In his memorandum of points and 

authorities supporting the petition, Father asserted new 

“evidence now proves Father’s factual innocence” and 

“demonstrates unequivocally that [Father] could not have 

sexually abused minor L[.G.], because L[.G.] and M[.S.] did not 

sleep at Father’s residence on the relevant date of August 10 to 

August 11, 2018.” Father attached the new evidence—his cell 

phone bill for the period of July 15, 2018 through August 14, 

2018—to his declaration in support of the petition. According to 

Father’s declaration, he called Mother’s cell phone on August 11, 

2018 at 4:43 a.m., and again at 5:00 a.m. “to advise that [he] was 

outside waiting for the girls,” and Mother returned his call at 

5:07 a.m. He pointed to the page of his cell phone bill reflecting 

these calls. Father also stated in his declaration that the call his 

sister testified she made to him on the night of August 10, 2018 is 

reflected on his cell phone bill as an 11:16 p.m. call from “Blocked 

NBR – incoming,” because his sister called him from her son’s 

phone “which was issued to him by the County of Los Angeles 

which comes up as a blocked number when placing a call.” 

On February 13, 2020, the day of the disposition hearing, 

Father filed a “Motion in Limine for Disqualification of Minors’ 
32

Counsel,” pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.660, 

which sets forth “[c]onflict of interest guidelines for attorneys 

representing siblings” in dependency proceedings. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 5.660(c).) In the motion, Father stated: “In this 

matter, there is reason to believe that [counsel for L.G. and M.S.] 

has an existing and continuing conflict in her representation of 

minor M[.S.] because of her representation of minor L[.G.] On 

February 7, 2020, Father’s counsel sent minors’ counsel a letter 

setting forth the basis for the conflict and requesting that minors’ 

counsel recuse herself. . . . The conflict is especially germane to 

the upcoming disposition hearing in that minors’ counsel 

indicated that [she] will be requesting that the case terminate 

with Mother being given full legal and physical custody. Due to 

the distinct and persuasive evidence bearing significantly on the 

credibility of L[.G.], counsel cannot at the same time objectively 

evaluate L[.G.]’s credibility and advocate against M[.S.]’s 

relationship with her father. In addition, due to the new 

evidence presented to the Court in Father’s . . . § 388 petition, 

this information is also new to M[.S.]’s counsel, for which M[.S.] 

should also be filing a . . . § 388 petition, but for it would be a 

conflict to the representation of L[.G.] Conflict is inescapable and 

[m]inors’ counsel must be recused.” Father attached to this 

motion the February 7, 2020 letter his counsel sent to counsel for 

L.G. and M.S. The letter attached Father’s cell phone bill for the 

period of July 15, 2018 through August 14, 2018. 

On February 13, 2020, the day of the disposition hearing, 

DCFS filed a Last Minute Information for the Court, 

recommending L.G. and M.S. “remain in the home of [Mother] 

and that jurisdiction be terminated for these children” and that 

Father “be given monitored visitation with the child M[.S.] and 
33

no visitation with the child L[.G.]” DCFS also reported in the 

Last Information for the Court that M.S. spontaneously told the 

social worker during a home visit on January 14, 2020 that she 

“had a funny story about her dad.” M.S. stated that on an 

occasion when she was four years old,17 Father was wearing 

underwear with a hole in the right upper thigh. He pulled the 

underwear off and put on another pair, which also had a hole. 

M.S. indicated she saw Father’s buttocks, but not his penis, on 

that occasion. The social worker asked M.S. if she had ever seen 

Father’s penis. M.S. stated she took a shower with Father when 

she was four years old, and she saw his penis then. The social 

worker “believe[d] that M[.S.] might be making small disclosures 

to test adult reactions.” Mother agreed to address any additional 

such disclosures with the social worker and M.S.’s therapist.

IX. Disposition

At the outset of the February 13, 2020 disposition hearing, 

the juvenile court stated it was denying Father’s section 388 

petition without a hearing, explaining: “The court has already 

made credibility findings as to the minor L[.G.]’s statements. 

And the documents proffered in support of the 388 [petition] are 

insufficient to warrant a hearing on the 388 [petition].”

Next, the juvenile court addressed Father’s motion to 

disqualify counsel for L.G. and M.S. The court asked the 

children’s counsel: “Do you believe there is a conflict of interest 

between your clients that prevents you from adequately 

representing both of your clients?” The children’s counsel 

responded negatively, and the court denied the motion. Father’s 

17 M.S. was nearly six years old at the time of this home 

visit.
34

counsel did not make any arguments in support of his motion or 

ask to do so.

The juvenile court declared L.G. and M.S. dependents of 

the court, removed M.S. from Father, ordered both children to 

remain in Mother’s home, and terminated dependency 

jurisdiction over L.G. As to M.S., the court stated: “I do 

understand that M[.S.] has a bond with [Father], and I don’t 

think it would be to her benefit to close the case today.” Counsel 

for L.G. and M.S. agreed with the court’s decision to maintain 

jurisdiction over M.S. Father’s counsel requested the court order 

conjoint counseling for Father and M.S., explaining he had 

discussed the matter with counsel for L.G. and M.S., who 

expressed no objection. The court ordered conjoint counseling for 

Father and M.S., if recommended by M.S.’s therapist. The court 

also ordered monitored visitation between Father and M.S. 

Finally, the court ordered Father and Mother to complete case 

plans comprised of case-related services. 

Father appealed, challenging the jurisdictional findings 

and the disposition order regarding M.S. Counsel for M.S. 

(appointed by this court), filed a respondent’s brief on appeal. 

DCFS filed a letter, stating it joined in the arguments made by 

M.S.’s counsel in the brief.

DISCUSSION

I. Exclusion of Evidence of L.G.’s Medical Records and 

Medical Condition

Father contends the juvenile court erred (1) in granting 

L.G.’s motion to quash the subpoenas Father served on two of her 

treating physicians at the Medical Hub Clinic on the ground the 

medical records Father sought were protected from disclosure by 

the physician-patient privilege; and (2) in excluding, under 
35

Evidence Code section 352, evidence Father sought to introduce 

at the adjudication hearing that L.G. tested positive for 

Chlamydia. We begin with the latter contention.

Under Evidence Code section 352, the “court in its 

discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission 

will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create 

substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or 

of misleading the jury.” “ ‘We will not overturn or disturb a trial 

court’s exercise of its discretion under section 352 in the absence 

of manifest abuse, upon a finding that its decision was palpably 

arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd.’ ” (Butler v. LeBouef

(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 198, 207.)

Evidence that L.G. tested positive for Chlamydia in October 

2019 is not relevant to the issue of whether Father raped her 

more than a year before in August 2018. Father was seeking to 

use this evidence to challenge L.G.’s credibility at trial based on 

his speculation (1) that L.G. knew she had Chlamydia in August 

2019 when she wrote her school essay; and (2) that L.G. 

concocted a plan to wrongfully accuse Father of rape so she could 

blame him for giving her Chlamydia and hide from Mother that 

she was sexually active. Any minimal probative value of this 

evidence on L.G.’s credibility was substantially outweighed by 

the probability that admission of the evidence would necessitate 

undue consumption of time and create substantial danger of 

undue prejudice and of confusing the issues. Although this case 

involves a court trial, and not a jury trial, these considerations 

still come into play. The juvenile court’s decision to protect L.G. 

from attacks on her credibility with minimally probative and 

highly personal information was not arbitrary. Father was not 
36

prevented from otherwise challenging the credibility of L.G.’s 

statements/testimony. In the absence of manifest abuse, we will 

not disturb the juvenile court’s decision. 

Because we conclude the juvenile court did not err in 

excluding under Evidence Code section 352 all evidence of L.G. 

testing positive for Chlamydia, we need not address Father’s 

contention the juvenile court erred in granting L.G.’s motion to 

quash the subpoena for L.G.’s medical records. Both below and 

on appeal, Father made clear the medical records he sought by 

the subpoenas were those demonstrating L.G. tested positive for 

Chlamydia. Thus, the medical records were covered by the 

juvenile court’s ruling excluding under Evidence Code section 352 

all evidence of L.G. testing positive for Chlamydia.

II. Denial of Father’s Motion to Disqualify the 

Children’s Counsel

Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his 

motion to disqualify the children’s counsel, made after the 

adjudication hearing on grounds counsel had a conflict of interest 

in representing both L.G. and M.S.

California Rules of Court, rule 5.660(c) sets forth “[c]onflict 

of interest guidelines for attorneys representing siblings.” As set 

forth in the rule, a juvenile court “may appoint a single attorney 

to represent a group of siblings involved in the same dependency 

proceeding.” (Rule 5.660(c)(1)(A).) “An attorney representing a 

group of siblings has an ongoing duty to evaluate the interests of 

each sibling and assess whether there is an actual conflict of 

interest.” (Rule 5.660(c)(2)(A).) “If an attorney believes that an 

actual conflict of interest existed at appointment or developed 

during representation, the attorney must take any action 

necessary to ensure that the siblings’ interests are not 
37

prejudiced,” such as notifying the juvenile court of the conflict or 

requesting to withdraw from representing some or all the 

siblings. (Rule 5.660(c)(2)(D).) “If the court determines that an 

actual conflict of interest exists, the court must relieve an 

attorney from representation of some or all of the siblings.” (Rule 

5.660(c)(2)(E).) The fact that “siblings have different parents,” by 

itself, does “not necessarily demonstrate an actual conflict of 

interest”; nor does the fact that “[t]here is a purely theoretical or 

abstract conflict of interest among the siblings.” (Rule 

5.660(c)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii).) “[U]nder rule 5.660(c), a conflict 

becomes ‘actual’ when an attorney’s duties of loyalty, 

confidentiality, and zealous advocacy require the attorney to take 

or to refrain from taking some action to serve the ‘best interests’

of one minor client, but the attorney is unable to do so without 

violating a duty owed by the attorney to another client; or when 

the attorney is unable independently to evaluate the best 

interests of each minor client because of the minors’ conflicting 

interests.” (In re Zamer G. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1267, 

1272 (Zamer G.).)

“ ‘Generally, a trial court’s decision on a disqualification 

motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] If the 

trial court resolved disputed factual issues, the reviewing court 

should not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s express or 

implied findings supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] 

When substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual 

findings, the appellate court reviews the conclusions based on 

those findings for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, the 

trial court’s discretion is limited by the applicable legal 

principles. [Citation.] Thus, where there are no material 

disputed factual issues, the appellate court reviews the trial 
38

court’s determination as a question of law. [Citation.] In any 

event, a disqualification motion involves concerns that justify 

careful review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion.’ ” (Zamer 

G., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1262-1263.) “On appeal, we 

must indulge ‘[a]ll intendments and presumptions . . . to support 

[the lower court’s order] on matters as to which the record is 

silent.’ ” (Id. at p. 1271.) A juvenile court’s error in not relieving 

counsel from representing multiple siblings, where there is an 

actual conflict in the representation, is subject to harmless error 

analysis, and we reverse only if it is reasonably probable the 

result would have been more favorable to appellant but for the 

error. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 50, 59-60.)

Father asserts on appeal: “Evidence developed at trial 

which significantly undermined L[.G.]’s credibility. If L[.G.] was 

lying, and no sexual abuse occurred, then it was against M[.S.]’s 

best interest to have her relationship with [Father] undermined 

by continued detention from him, only limited monitored 

visitation, and the potential that jurisdiction could eventually be 

terminated awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody and 

[Father] only limited contact with her.” 

Father ignores M.S.’s statements to Mother and her 

therapist that she remembered wiping something off L.G.’s back 

as L.G. cried, while Father was present in pajama shorts. M.S.’s 

statements corroborate L.G.’s account and support the children’s 

counsel’s decision to advocate for dependency court jurisdiction 

over M.S. and removal from Father. Other statements M.S. 

made to Mother and the social worker—that Father had forced 

her to take a little purple pill to go to sleep and that he had taken 

off his underwear in front of her and showered with her—were 
39

additional cause for concern about her safety with Father, in 

light of her corroboration of some of L.G.’s statements. 

The children’s counsel expressed at the disposition hearing 

that she agreed with the juvenile court’s decision to keep the case 

open to allow M.S. to reunify with Father, over DCFS’s 

recommendation that the juvenile court terminate dependency 

jurisdiction with a family law order granting Mother sole custody 

and Father only monitored visitation. In fact, Father based his 

motion to disqualify the children’s counsel in part on his belief 

that the children’s counsel would join in DCFS’s recommendation 

at disposition. Moreover, when Father requested conjoint 

counseling with M.S., the children’s counsel did not object. 

Taking these positions demonstrates counsel’s ability to evaluate 

M.S.’s best interests independently from L.G.’s best interests. 

Father argues that in order for the children’s counsel to 

zealously advocate for M.S., counsel needed to attack L.G.’s 

credibility at trial regarding the molestation and rape allegations 

by (1) not objecting to the admission of evidence of L.G.’s positive 

test results for Chlamydia; (2) exploring evidence Father 

presented at trial to show L.G. and M.S. did not spend the night 

at his home on August 10, 2018 (e.g., the text messages between 

Mother and Father); and (3) challenging L.G. on a lengthy list 

Father put together of purported inconsistencies between L.G.’s 

statements to the police officers and the social worker, her 

statements during her forensic interview, and her trial 

testimony.18 Moreover, Father argues zealous advocacy of M.S. 

18 For example, Father points out, among other things: (1) 

L.G. did not mention the August 10, 2018 wrestling incident in 

her statements prior to her forensic interview; (2) in the forensic 

interview, L.G. stated the August 10, 2018 wrestling incident 
40

required the children’s counsel to join in or, at a minimum, 

investigate his section 388 petition, seeking to “rescind” the 

jurisdictional findings based on new evidence—his cell phone 

bills showing incoming and outgoing calls on August 10-11, 2018. 

We already discussed above the reasons the trial court 

properly excluded evidence of L.G.’s positive test results for 

Chlamydia. M.S.’s best interests would not have been furthered 

by attacking L.G.’s credibility with this minimally probative 

information.

Father ignores the fact that, after considering all the 

evidence presented at trial, the juvenile court made a finding that 

L.G. was credible in her statements/testimony that Father 

molested and raped her. It is not the province of this court to 

reevaluate a witness’s credibility. Moreover, Father does not 

suggest what M.S.’s counsel could have or should have done, 

above and beyond what Father’s counsel did, to further explore 

evidence he presented or to point out purported inconsistencies in 

L.G.’s statements/testimony.

Regarding Father’s section 388 petition, the juvenile court 

reviewed Father’s new evidence and denied the petition without a 

hearing, based on its finding L.G. was credible. It is not 

reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to 

Father if counsel for M.S. joined in the petition or conducted 

additional investigation regarding Father’s new evidence.

happened on the couch, but at trial she testified the incident 

happened on Father’s bed; and (3) in her forensic interview and 

at trial, L.G. discussed portions of the events on August 11, 2018 

out of chronological order, recalling later in her 

statement/testimony something that came before in the 

chronology.
41

Under either the abuse of discretion or de novo standard of 

review,19 the juvenile court did not err in denying Father’s motion 

to disqualify counsel for L.G. and M.S. based on an actual conflict 

of interest. Counsel demonstrated she was able to independently 

evaluate and zealously advocate for M.S.’s best interests. (Cf. 

Zamer G., supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272 [juvenile court did 

not abuse its discretion in its pre-adjudication decision to 

disqualify counsel, where substantial evidence supported juvenile 

court’s finding of an actual conflict of interest in counsel’s 

representation of four siblings/half siblings, where counsel “would 

have to dispute the accuracy or reliability” of statements of abuse 

made by two siblings in order to “advocate in favor of 

reunification” between their abuser and their two half siblings, 

and counsel “could not professionally and independently evaluate

each child’s best interests when faced with this dilemma”].)20 

19 Father asserts that in ruling on his motion, the juvenile 

court did not make factual findings on material disputed issues, 

so we should review the matter de novo. We need not reach the 

issue because we would not disturb the juvenile court’s decision 

under either standard of review, based on the reasons set forth 

above.

20 Father’s reliance on Zamer G. in support of his 

contention the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to 

disqualify the children’s counsel is misplaced because Zamer G. is 

distinguishable on its facts. The juvenile court in Zamer G.

disqualified counsel pre-adjudication. (Zamer G., supra, 153 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1272.) Here, Father made his motion to 

disqualify the children’s counsel post-adjudication, after the 

juvenile court had already (1) made a finding that L.G.’s 

statements regarding Father’s sexual abuse were credible and (2) 

determined the new evidence Father submitted with his section 
42

And, even assuming counsel had an actual conflict, Father cannot 

show it is reasonably probable the outcome in this case would 

have been more favorable to him if the juvenile court had 

disqualified counsel from representing M.S. and appointed 

separate counsel.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional findings and disposition order regarding 

M.S. are affirmed as to Father.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.

388 petition did not alter the court’s finding as to L.G.’s 

credibility.