Filed 1/5/22 In re Kamila E. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re KAMILA E., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B310869, B312081

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 20CCJP00610B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALFREDO E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Appellant Alfredo E. (father) appeals from the juvenile 

court’s orders assuming jurisdiction over his daughter Kamila 

(born 2014) and removing her from his custody. Father also 

challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction, 

granting Maribel M. (mother)1 sole physical custody of Kamila, 

both parents joint legal custody and according father six hours of 

weekly monitored visits.

We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

BACKGROUND

Detention and Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 

petition

On January 8, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department 

of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a 

referral alleging that half-sibling Justin (born 2008)2 reported 

that father touched him inappropriately on his buttocks and 

genital area and had done so for many years. Justin had 

disclosed the inappropriate touching to mother the previous 

week.

Mother told the responding social worker that Justin and 

Kamila live with her. Father did not live in the home but visited 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.

2 Justin is not a subject of this appeal.
3

with the children every Saturday and on occasional weekdays. 

The parents ended their relationship three years earlier.

Mother said that Justin’s biological father had no contact 

with them since Justin’s birth and his whereabouts were 

unknown. Justin believed father was his biological father, but 

father was Kamila’s biological father only. Neither child was the 

subject of a family law custody order.

Mother said that Justin was quiet and appeared sad when 

father visited the home on December 28, 2019. After father left, 

Justin told mother he did not want father to come to the home 

anymore. He said father put his hand under Justin’s shorts and 

squeezed his buttocks. Mother responded that she could not stop 

father from coming to the home because he helped pay the rent. 

She said she would speak with father and tell him to stop 

touching Justin. When confronted father said he was only being 

affectionate but that he would stop touching the child.

Mother told the social worker that she had learned only the 

previous day that father was touching Justin’s buttocks and 

genitals under the child’s underwear. Justin’s therapist told 

mother that the child had disclosed the inappropriate touching. 

Justin had been receiving therapy for five months because he was 

unusually quiet and appeared to be sad.

The social worker spoke separately and privately with 

Justin at his school. Justin referred to father as “my dad” 

throughout the interview. He said father had not lived with the 

family for several years but visited every Saturday. He felt 

uncomfortable in father’s presence because “[h]e touches my butt 

between my underwear and my skin . . . .” Justin reported that 

father had been touching his buttocks this way for many years 
4

and that father did so when mother was not looking. He had not 

seen father touch Kamila in this manner.

Justin reported that during a recent visit with father he 

was sitting on the bed and father was lying down facing him. 

Justin told father he was feeling sad, father asked him why, and 

then father “squeezed my middle part inside my underwear.” 

Justin clarified that his “middle part” were his genitals. He 

asked father to stop and father complied, but Justin was afraid 

that father would continue to touch him. Justin reported the 

incident to mother, who responded that the family needed 

father’s financial support. Justin said he had not seen father 

since disclosing the incident to mother. When the social worker 

told Justin she would be speaking with father, Justin replied, “I 

think my dad is going to lie to you.”

The social worker also interviewed Kamila separately and 

privately at the child’s school. Kamila denied seeing father touch 

Justin inappropriately and denied that anyone touched her 

inappropriately. 

Father told the social worker during a January 10, 2020 

interview that he was Kamila’s biological father and that he 

considered Justin to be his own child. Father said he had 

another child named Geovani, age 12, whom he visited every two 

months.

Father said mother is usually present during his Saturday 

visits with Justin and Kamila. He adamantly denied touching 

Justin’s buttocks or genitals. He suggested that Justin’s 

disclosures may have been prompted by a recent incident in 

which father scolded Justin for using father’s credit card. Father 

signed a safety plan stating he would have no contact with the 

children for seven days.
5

Justin’s therapist told the social worker that Justin had 

been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and had been attending 

weekly therapy sessions since July 2019. Justin told the 

therapist on January 8, 2020, that father put his hand on Justin’s 

buttocks and genitals, under the child’s clothing.

The Department filed a petition on behalf of Justin and 

Kamila on January 31, 2020, alleging under Welfare and 

Institutions Code3 section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j), that 

father sexually abused Justin by touching the child’s buttocks, 

penis, and testicles, that mother knew or reasonably should have 

known of the abuse and failed to protect the children, placing 

them at risk of serious physical harm. The petition further 

alleged that father’s sexual abuse of Justin placed Kamila at risk 

of harm.

Both parents were present at the February 3, 2020 

detention hearing at which the juvenile court ordered Kamila 

detained from father and released to mother. The court granted 

father six hours of monitored visits per week and specified that 

mother was not to monitor the visits. The court also granted 

mother a temporary restraining order against father.

Jurisdiction/disposition

The Department’s March 27, 2020 jurisdiction/disposition 

report contained a summary of Justin’s statements during a 

February 27, 2020 forensic interview. Justin confirmed that 

father touched his genitals and buttocks while they were on a bed 

in the home. He said that father had touched his buttocks in the 

past but could not remember when father first began doing so.

3 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
6

During a March 2, 2020 interview with the social worker, 

mother recounted an incident that occurred when Justin was 10

years old. Justin was getting dressed after showering when 

father told him, “you are getting older,” and “your penis is going 

to grow.” Justin did not respond but covered himself up. Mother 

recalled another incident when Justin was using father’s cell 

phone to play a game in the car while father was driving the 

family. Justin tapped mother to show her that father had a 

pornographic image on his phone.

In a March 5, 2020 interview, father again denied touching 

Justin’s genitals or buttocks. He said he would give Justin a 

spank on his bottom over his clothing as an expression of 

affection when saying goodbye. Father admitted commenting 

once on Justin’s physical development when Justin was coming 

out of the shower. Father had said, “look at your penis.” Father 

also admitted looking at pornography but said he did not know 

what Justin had seen on father’s phone.

The Department recommended that the children remain in 

mother’s care and that father receive family reunification 

services. The adjudication hearing was continued several times 

because of COVID-19 concerns.

Last minute information reports and review reports

The Department reported in a last minute information for 

the court filed on May 1, 2020 that father had stopped providing 

mother with financial assistance. The social worker monitored a 

video call between father and Kamila on March 16, 2020. Father 

was appropriate and no concerns were noted.

In a July 27, 2020 interim review report, the Department 

reported that mother was participating in weekly individual 

counseling. She was awaiting processing in a parenting program 
7

but had not yet enrolled in a sexual abuse awareness program. 

The temporary restraining order against father had been 

renewed twice but had since lapsed.

Father had not enrolled in any services. He had not 

participated in in-person visits with Kamila because of COVID-19 

concerns. He telephoned mother for updates on the child and 

arranged with the social worker to have a virtual visit with 

Kamila the following week.

In a November 2020 last minute information for the court, 

the Department reported that mother continued to participate in 

individual therapy, including therapy to address sexual abuse 

awareness. Mother was also participating in a 20-session 

parenting program that she was expected to complete soon. 

Mother also recently began working a few days a week.

Father had not enrolled in any services. The social worker 

monitored a one-and-a-half-hour, in-person visit between father 

and Kamila at an outdoor picnic area on November 2, 2020. 

Father was appropriate and affectionate.

The Department recommended that Kamila and Justin be 

declared dependent children and that jurisdiction be terminated 

and mother granted sole physical custody of the children.

Adjudication and disposition

At the adjudication hearing held on January 28, 2021, the 

juvenile court received into evidence the Department’s reports. 

The court then amended the section 300 petition by interlineation 

to state that father had “inappropriate sexual contact” with 

Justin by squeezing and touching the child’s buttocks, penis, and 

testicles. The court struck the section 300, subdivision (d) 

allegations and sustained the petition as amended, under 

subdivisions (b) and (j).
8

The juvenile court then proceeded to disposition and 

ordered Kamila removed from father and continued in mother’s 

home. The court’s minute order states in part:

“The Court finds by clear and convincing 

evidence, pursuant to . . . sections 361(a)(1), 361(c), 

361(d) and 362(a), and additionally applying to 

noncustodial parent(s)/legal guardian(s) the 

constitutional and statutory safeguards available to 

custodial parents.

“It is reasonable and necessary to remove the 

child from the father . . . because there is a 

substantial danger to the physical health, safety, 

protection, or physical or emotional well-being, and 

special needs, if applicable, of the child, and there are 

no reasonable means by which the child’s physical 

health can be protected, without removing the child 

from the home and the care, custody, and control of 

that or those parent(s)/legal guardian(s).

“The Court further finds that it would be 

detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being, and special needs, if applicable, 

of the child to be returned to or placed in the home or 

the care, custody, and control of that or those 

parent(s)/legal guardian(s).

“The Department . . . made reasonable efforts 

to prevent removal but there are no services available 

to prevent further detention.”

The juvenile court then terminated jurisdiction with a 

family law order granting mother sole physical custody of Kamila 

and both parents joint legal custody. The court stayed the order 

terminating jurisdiction pending receipt of the custody order. 

Father was accorded monitored visits for a minimum of six hours 

per week.
9

Counsel for all parties were present at the March 22, 2021 

hearing at which the juvenile court signed and filed the custody 

order. Before signing the order, the juvenile court asked whether 

there were any objections to the court signing the custody order. 

There was no objection, and the juvenile court signed the order. 

This appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Father raises the following contentions on appeal:

1. There was no substantial evidence supporting 

jurisdiction at the time of the adjudication hearing.

2. The removal order must be vacated because the juvenile 

court failed to make the required findings under section 361, 

subdivision (d), and because substantial evidence did not support 

removal.

3. The custody order must be vacated because the juvenile 

court failed to make the findings required by California Rules of 

Court, rule 5.695(a)(7)(A).

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes a court to 

assume dependency jurisdiction over a child if “[t]he child has 

suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, 

serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or 

inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise 

or protect the child.” The statute further provides that “[t]he 

child shall continue to be a dependent child pursuant to this 

subdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from 
10

risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness.” (§ 300, subd. 

(b)(1).)

A court may also assert dependency jurisdiction over a 

child under section 300, subdivision (j) when “[t]he child’s sibling 

has been abused or neglected . . . , and there is a substantial risk 

that the child will be abused or neglected.”

Father does not challenge the factual basis for the juvenile 

court’s jurisdictional findings—that father engaged in 

inappropriate sexual contact with Justin. Rather, he contends 

neither Kamila nor Justin was at risk of harm at the time of the 

jurisdictional hearing.

We review the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for 

substantial evidence. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) In 

doing so, “‘“we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence 

to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we 

review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s 

determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are 

the province of the trial court.”’” (Ibid.)

There was substantial evidence of a continuing risk of 

harm to Kamila. Father’s inappropriate sexual contact with 

Justin continued over a period of years and included touching 

Justin’s buttocks and genitals under the child’s clothing. The 

inappropriate sexual contact occurred in the home where Kamila 

and Justin both lived. Father repeatedly denied or minimized his 

inappropriate conduct. He suggested that Justin fabricated the 

disclosures after being disciplined by father. Finally, father 

failed to participate in any services.

That father and mother no longer lived together and had 

not done so for years did not alleviate the ongoing risk. Father’s 
11

sexual contact with Justin continued after the parents separated 

and father no longer lived in the home.

The absence of evidence of inappropriate sexual contact 

between father and Kamila does not defeat jurisdiction. A child 

need not suffer actual harm before a juvenile court may 

intervene. (In re Leticia S. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, fn. 3.) 

The grounds for assuming jurisdiction over a child under section 

300, subdivision (j), moreover, are very broad. “‘[S]ubdivision (j) 

was intended to expand the grounds for the exercise of 

jurisdiction as to children whose sibling has been abused or 

neglected as defined in section 300, subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or 

(i). Subdivision (j) does not state that its application is limited to 

the risk that the child will be abused or neglected as defined in 

the same subdivision that describes the abuse or neglect of the 

sibling.’” (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 774.)

Contrary to father’s assertion, the temporary restraining 

order mother obtained against father in January 2020 did not 

eliminate the risk of harm. The record indicates that the 

restraining order lapsed on May 27, 2020. There is no evidence 

that a restraining order was in effect at the time of the 

January 28, 2021 jurisdiction hearing. That the juvenile court 

could have issued a three-year restraining order against father 

under section 213.5, subdivision (d), instead of assuming 

jurisdiction over Kamila neither alleviates nor negates the risk of 

harm to Kamila at the time of the adjudication hearing.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional order.
12

II. Removal order

A. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 361, subdivision (d) states in relevant part: “A 

dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of 

his or her parents . . . with whom the child did not reside at the 

time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds 

clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial 

danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being of the child for the parent . . . to live with 

the child or otherwise exercise the parent’s . . . right to physical 

custody, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s 

physical and emotional health can be protected without removing 

the child from the child’s parent’s . . . physical custody.”

Section 361, subdivision (e) provides: “The court shall state 

the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based.”

In Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 our 

Supreme Court set forth the standard of review applicable when 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding 

that requires clear and convincing proof: “[A]ppellate review of 

the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring 

clear and convincing proof must account for the level of 

confidence this standard demands. [W]hen reviewing a finding 

that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the 

question before the appellate court is whether the record as a 

whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact 

finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. 

Consistent with well-established principles governing review for 

sufficiency of the evidence, in making this assessment the 

appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below and give due deference to how the 
13

trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, 

resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable 

inferences from the evidence.” (Id. at pp. 995-996.) Although 

O.B. is a conservatorship case and not a dependency case, the 

standard of review set forth therein is controlling in dependency 

cases as well. (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 155; see 

O.B., at p. 999.)

B. Substantial evidence supports the removal order

Substantial evidence supports the removal order. Father’s 

inappropriate sexual contact with Justin, including squeezing 

Justin’s buttocks and genitals under the child’s clothing, supports 

the order removing Kamila from him. Father’s sexual contact 

with Justin, who lived in the same home as Kamila, occurred 

over a period of years and continued after father no longer lived 

in the family home; father repeatedly denied or minimized his 

conduct; and father refused to participate in any services to 

address the case issues.

C. Failure to state facts harmless

Because substantial evidence supports the removal order, 

the juvenile court’s failure to state the specific facts it relied upon 

in issuing that order was harmless. (In re V.L., supra, 54 

Cal.App.5th at p. 159.) An appellate court will not reverse an 

order unless it concludes that it is reasonably probable that a 

result more favorable to the appealing party would have been 

reached absent such error. (Ibid.) Here, it is not reasonably 

probable that the juvenile court would have reached a different 

result had it stated the pertinent facts.

We reject father’s argument that he suffered prejudice 

because the court’s purportedly erroneous removal order “starts 

the clock running on reunification efforts,” which could lead to 
14

termination of parental rights. The juvenile court here 

terminated jurisdiction and issued a custody order. No 

reunification clock was running, and termination of father’s 

parental rights was not at issue.

III. Custody order

Father’s sole basis for challenging the custody order is that 

he was prejudiced by the juvenile courts’ failure to state the 

factual basis for that order under California Rules of Court, rule 

5.695(a)(7)(A). That rule states: “At the disposition hearing, the 

court may . . . [¶] [d]eclare dependency, remove physical custody 

from the parent or guardian, and . . . [¶] [a]fter stating on the 

record or in writing the factual basis for the order, order custody 

to a noncustodial parent, terminate jurisdiction, and direct that 

Custody Order (form JV-200) be prepared and filed under rule 

5.700.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(7)(A).) Father claims 

there is a reasonable probability that he would have received 

more than six hours of weekly visits with Kamila had the 

juvenile court made specific findings pursuant to that rule.

Father never argued that he should receive more than six 

hours of visitation, nor did he object when the juvenile court 

specifically asked whether the parties had any objection to the 

court’s custody order. There is no basis for concluding that father 

would have been accorded more visitation hours if the juvenile 

court had made specific findings as the basis for issuing the 

custody order.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s orders establishing 

jurisdiction over Kamila, removing her from father’s custody, and 
15

terminating jurisdiction and granting mother sole physical 

custody and both parents joint legal custody over Kamila.

___________________________

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

_______________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.

_______________________________

HOFFSTADT, J.