1

Filed 9/10/21 In re Amanda T. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Amanda T., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

A161044

(Alameda County Super. Ct. 

No. JD-032096-01)

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ILENE T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Amanda T., now 12 years old, who had been sexually molested by her 

mother’s live-in boyfriend, was ordered removed from her mother’s custody 

and placed with her father in September 2020. Ilene T. (Mother) appeals, 

alleging there was no substantial evidence to support the removal order. We 

find there was substantial evidence and shall affirm the disposition orders.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Facts

Mother and Ray T. (Father) are a married couple but have been 

separated since 2015. Before the initiation of this case, Mother, who is 51 

years old, had primary custody of Amanda and her older brother, Spencer.

The parents lived within a block of one another, so exchange of custody was 
2

convenient. Mother was a geriatric social worker with a master’s degree in 

social work. As such, she was a mandated reporter trained in reporting 

requirements. Father was disabled and did not work, so he usually picked up

Amanda and Spencer from school. The children would do homework at 

Father’s house until Mother got home from work. Father also took Amanda 

to her ice hockey practice twice a week, to Hebrew and Sunday school, and for 

overnights at his house every two weeks.

In September 2017, Mother met Jeff L., now age 46, and he moved in 

with her and the children in February 2018. He helped Mother with the rent 

by performing handyman tasks for the landlord. Jeff had used 

methamphetamine since about 2016. He also engaged in domestic violence in 

a previous relationship. Mother was aware of Jeff’s history of being in jail, 

abusing drugs, and engaging in domestic violence, but she thought he was 

“over it.”

In the early morning hours of January 14, 2020, Amanda, then age 10, 

who was sleeping naked in her own bed, crawled into bed with Mother and 

Jeff after becoming worried about going to sleep-away science camp the next 

day. Jeff was also naked, and Mother let Amanda snuggle in between the 

two adults. When Amanda woke up later that morning, she told Mother that 

Jeff had rubbed his penis up against her vagina and then had “ ‘wet’ the bed.” 

Mother testified at the jurisdiction hearing that she woke up and felt a wet 

spot next to her ear, and that’s when Amanda told her that Jeff had wet the 

bed. Amanda demonstrated to Mother that Jeff’s penis went about a quarter 

of an inch into her vagina. Mother thought the wet spot looked and felt like a 

semen stain, and from its location on the bed did not think it could have 

resulted from her own sexual activity with Jeff. After Amanda disclosed the 
3

molestation, Mother did not think she seemed upset and drove her to science 

camp where she stayed for three days.

Mother confronted Jeff about Amanda’s accusation, and he said he did 

not know whether he had rubbed his penis against Amanda’s vagina. Mother 

was concerned she could get into trouble as a mandated reporter and did 

some research to find out if the alleged acts were illegal. Mother did not 

want to believe Jeff had done this, and she wanted to contain the fallout 

within herself without involving the authorities or impacting the family. She 

did keep it a secret, too, until the whole thing “got too out of control and too 

big.” She told no one, not even Father or her parents, about Amanda’s 

allegation for two weeks. Mother admits she was in denial and was 

minimizing the episode. After two weeks, Mother told a friend, and the 

friend told her to “do something about it.” After three weeks, Mother finally 

went to the police. Jeff continued to live in the house during her delay.

Six months previously, Amanda had reported to Mother that Jeff 

touched her vagina while sitting on her bed and saying goodnight to her. 

When Mother asked him about it, Jeff did not deny it, yet Mother “thought it 

was nothing” and dismissed Amanda’s report. Mother did not report the 

touching incident to the authorities. She later testified she knew what were 

reportable incidents for older adults, but did not know reportable incidents 

for children. Mother also said she did not report Amanda’s complaint about 

inappropriate touching because she did not want to falsely accuse Jeff. She 

had never seen him touch Amanda inappropriately and thought Amanda was 

more likely to touch him and explore his body. She had witnessed Amanda 

do this and told her it was inappropriate.

Prior to this incident, Amanda had been hospitalized three times in 

February and March 2019 under Welfare and Institutions Code section 
4

5150.1 She had cried, screamed, kicked, hit things, and threatened to commit 

suicide at the time of these hospitalizations, but she had never reported 

sexual abuse. She once attempted suicide about a year before this incident. 

At least one of the hospitalizations was the result of inappropriate sexual 

touching or sexual play with a peer at school.

As a result of the hospitalizations, Amanda had been evaluated for 

medication, and she received therapy, school counseling, biofeedback, and a 

special school plan for disabled students due to her “emotional disturbance.”

Her psychiatrist had prescribed Prozac and Guanfacine for her for mood and 

anxiety issues.

On February 4, 2020, Mother reported the January 14 incident to the 

police and to the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency). On the 

same day, she told Jeff he needed to make plans to move out. She was 

coming to understand he had pushed his way into her home. Later that day, 

Amanda was interviewed at the Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and 

Coordination Center (CALICO). Amanda told the interviewer she usually 

sleeps naked, and the night before going to science camp, she got into 

Mother’s bed and woke Mother. It was Mother’s idea that she sleep in the 

middle of the adults so she would not fall off the bed. Jeff was naked and 

Mother had on underwear and a shirt. After Mother fell back asleep, 

Amanda was facing toward Jeff, and Jeff put his “pee-hole” into her “peehole.” He used his hands to pull her towards himself repeatedly as she 

changed her position in the bed. She thought he then urinated, but Mother 

told her the wetness was something else. In the morning she told Mother,

who told her not to worry while she was away at camp.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
5

Jeff continued to live in the home after the incident, but Mother would

not let Amanda sleep in the adults’ bed or allow her to be alone with Jeff. 

Amanda had seen Mother shaking because she was nervous around Jeff, but

Mother said if he moved out their rent would go up. Amanda had not told 

anyone else what had happened with Jeff.

Amanda also told the CALICO interviewer that in August 2019, she 

went into Mother’s bed while Mother was in the bathroom getting ready for 

bed. Jeff was wearing sweatpants, and Amanda could not remember if she 

was naked or wearing underwear. She was watching videos on the phone, 

and Jeff pulled down his sweatpants so his penis was exposed and put it into 

her “butt.” Mother came into the room and took Amanda back to her own 

bedroom. Mother later testified that she did not know of this sodomy 

incident until after the CALICO interview.

On February 4, 2020, a warrant was issued for Jeff’s arrest on the basis 

of Mother’s report and Amanda’s interview. Jeff was taken into custody the 

next day. When he was arrested, he had more than five grams of 

methamphetamine and a meth pipe in his possession. Mother and Spencer 

told the police that Amanda frequently walked around the house naked. Jeff

admitted Amanda sometimes slept in the bed with him and Mother and 

admitted he had slept naked with her in the bed. He admitted observing the 

wet spot as described by Amanda, denied acting with intent, and said he did 

not know if Amanda was lying. The police issued an emergency protective 

order for Amanda. When the police arrived to arrest Jeff, Mother admitted 

she knew of Jeff’s past domestic violence and other history, but she did not 

think he currently used drugs or alcohol and claimed she had seen no red 

flags.
6

On February 5, 2020, Father said he had not been aware of Amanda’s 

allegations of sexual abuse against Jeff until after Mother reported it to the 

police. He said he was prepared to provide care for Amanda. On February 4, 

2020, Amanda was taken into protective custody and was released to Father 

on February 6, 2020. Spencer was deemed not to be at risk and continued 

living with Mother.

B. The Dependency Proceedings

1. The Petition and Detention

On February 6, 2020, the Agency filed a petition under section 300, 

subdivisions (b)(1) and (d), alleging Amanda was at substantial risk of 

physical or emotional harm or sexual abuse due to Mother’s failure to protect 

her from sexual abuse by Jeff, occurring on January 14, 2020, reported to 

Mother by the child after the child had previously reported sexual abuse by 

Jeff six months prior, yet Mother failed to report it until February 4, 2020. 

On February 7, 2020, the juvenile court detained Amanda from Mother and 

released her to Father (who was declared the presumed father). The court 

directed Mother to have visitation supervised by Father until therapeutic 

visitation could be arranged, and then it was to be limited to therapeutic

visitation.

2. Jurisdiction

The social worker’s jurisdiction report dated February 27, 2020,

recommended the juvenile court sustain the petition and provide family 

maintenance services to Father and Amanda. The social worker 

recommended that Amanda participate in mental health services to process 

her sexual abuse and to monitor ongoing contact between Mother and 

Amanda.

The social worker listed as concerns that Amanda has a history of 

mental and emotional health issues, Mother reported difficulty getting Jeff to 
7

move from her home over a period of time, Mother did not tell Father or 

others about the sexual abuse until her disclosure in February 2020, and 

Mother lacked insight and judgment to avoid placing Amanda at risk of 

further sexual abuse.

The social worker referred Mother for individual therapy, of which 

Mother promptly availed herself. On May 8, 2020, Mother obtained a fiveyear domestic violence restraining order protecting herself and her two 

children from Jeff. By the end of May 2020, Mother had completed a 32-hour 

online parenting class.

At the contested jurisdiction hearing on July 30, 2020, Mother testified 

she was no longer in a relationship with Jeff. As a social worker herself, 

Mother acknowledged she was a mandated reporter and had received 

training as such. She testified she saw no sign that Jeff was an abuser but 

admitted he took Amanda to stores and bought her gifts. After Amanda

reported the abuse, Mother read up on grooming behavior by child abusers

and realized this could have been grooming behavior. Amanda, too, told the 

CALICO interviewer that Jeff used to be really nice to her and buy her 

things, but in the past week or two, he wasn’t so nice anymore.

Mother testified that Amanda had engaged in yelling, screaming, and 

hitting things, leading to a psychiatric hold when she was nine years old. 

Amanda reported that a friend made her pull down her pants at her home, 

which apparently led to the first section 5150 commitment. Amanda was 

hospitalized under section 5150 on three occasions because she wanted to 

“jump out the window.” These events occurred in February and March 2019, 

after Jeff had moved into the home. In response, and after having trouble 

locating a new psychiatrist to treat her, Mother and Father started Amanda 
8

with neurofeedback in October 2019, and she had visits with the school 

psychologists.

According to Mother’s testimony, on January 14, 2020, she awoke to a 

wet spot on the bed by her ear and Amanda told her Jeff had peed. Mother 

denied that Amanda told her Jeff had engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse 

with her; she testified she learned of that allegation in February 2020 from 

the police and social service reports. Mother said Amanda told her Jeff’s 

penis touched her and he peed on the bed. She told the police that Amanda 

told her Jeff’s penis went into her vagina a quarter of an inch and, when 

asked by the court, said she would not consider that intercourse. She 

admitted allowing Amanda naked in bed with the couple was not “the best 

idea,” but she trusted Jeff. Mother felt she had no role in the abuse.

When Mother was asked at the hearing about Amanda’s report that 

Jeff had touched her vagina while putting her to bed, Mother said she 

thought Amanda was describing Jeff’s penis accidentally brushing against 

her, not an intentional act. She thought Jeff was fully clothed and they were 

just “snuggling.” Mother’s testimony was inconsistent with her earlier 

admission to the social worker and the police that Amanda told her Jeff had 

touched her vagina while putting her to bed.

Mother did not initially report the “touching” or “brushing” incident 

because she thought it was “innocent” and did not want to jump to 

conclusions with so little information. She noted Amanda was historically 

suicidal and emotionally fragile, and Mother apparently did not know 

whether to trust her account of the events. When Mother reported the abuse 

in February 2020, she suspected it was intentional conduct, but she

emphasized in her report to the police and her testimony that it was only 

“suspected” abuse. She also noticed Jeff’s behavior had changed after 
9

January 14, so she did not allow him to be in the same room alone with 

Amanda starting about a week after the incident.

The juvenile court sustained the petition and found Amanda was a 

dependent child under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). The court made 

a negative credibility finding with respect to Mother’s testimony. Visitation 

between Mother and Amanda was limited to therapeutic visitation.

3. Disposition

The Agency had filed a July 30, 2020 addendum report before the 

jurisdiction hearing, but due to lack of notice to Mother, the court did not 

consider that report until the disposition hearing on September 17, 2020. In 

the report, the social worker noted that in March 2020, Father expressed 

concerns regarding Amanda’s contact with the district attorney handling 

Jeff’s case because Amanda had been hitting her head against the wall due to 

stress from the criminal prosecution of Jeff and from peer conflicts at school. 

Amanda told the social worker she felt safe and comfortable with Father. 

She was attending online schooling during the pandemic, weekly therapy, ice 

hockey practice with her coach, and visits with Mother. In May, Amanda

completed her school year, and through July 2020, she continued attending 

weekly video therapy and monthly psychiatric care to monitor her

medication. By the end of July, Amanda’s self-defeating statements had 

decreased and she was not banging her head or becoming overly emotional 

when frustrated.

In the same report, the social worker noted that Mother had obtained a

restraining order against Jeff, who remained in custody, and had formally 

evicted Jeff from her home. Mother was attending weekly individual therapy 

by phone and said she had developed an understanding of grooming, of which

she had previously been unaware. Mother said she now understood she 
10

should not have allowed Amanda into the adults’ bed when Amanda was 

nude. Mother claimed she had tried to get Jeff to move out in September 

2019, due to his inattentive treatment of her, but he refused.

Mother thought she had been “very protective” of Amanda; she had 

always told Amanda not to let a grown person touch her, and she “trusted 

Amanda too much.” She had not reported the abuse because of Amanda’s 

history of suicidal tendencies and overwrought behavior, her lack of 

specificity, and her desire not to talk about it. Mother said she had wanted to 

call the authorities but worried that Jeff might be innocent. If Amanda had 

been more specific, she claimed she would have reported it.

The Agency filed an addendum report September 15, 2020, noting that 

Mother and Amanda had been referred to The Gathering Place for supervised 

visitation, and they had completed two supervised video chat sessions which 

were required before in-person visitation could take place. Those visits had 

gone well.

At the end of July 2020, Amanda’s therapist reported that Amanda was 

not ready for family therapy as she was still unwilling to talk about the abuse 

or her feelings toward Mother. Amanda felt a great sense of responsibility for 

the abuse, was suffering from anxiety, and was having nightmares. A week 

before the disposition hearing, the same therapist again said Amanda was 

not ready for family therapy but was beginning to open up during sessions. 

Amanda had started saying she did not want to continue therapy, though, 

and the therapist was concerned the parents might be sabotaging the 

therapeutic process by saying therapy was “too slow.” The social worker was 

concerned that Mother continued to minimize the abuse, to place 

responsibility on Amanda, and to lack insight. Father had difficulty setting 
11

limits with Mother, and because he needed help with childcare, he tended to 

put that need ahead of Amanda’s emotional welfare.

At the disposition hearing, Mother testified she had learned through 

the services provided by the Agency about coparenting skills, parenting 

skills, protecting her daughter, and maintaining boundaries in relationships. 

Mother said she would now report immediately if Amanda said the same 

things to her, even if she questioned the veracity of the report due to 

Amanda’s age and history. Mother said she would not bring men into her 

home so long as her children lived with her.

Mother claimed she realized after the jurisdiction hearing that she 

should not have let Amanda come to bed with her and Jeff just because she 

was tired from being busy. She said being busy was one of her excuses and 

part of the reason for not wanting to report. Mother said her failure to report 

the touching incident in the summer of 2019 was partly due to Amanda’s

having given her barely any information. She said she started to believe 

Amanda’s report of the molestations after the CALICO interview. Mother 

believed she was ready to resume custody of Amanda, but because her job 

would not allow her to provide full-time supervision, she was agreeable to 

splitting custody with Father.

The juvenile court declared Amanda a dependent child and ordered 

removal from Mother after finding by clear and convincing evidence that 

returning Amanda to Mother’s physical custody would cause a “substantial 

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

well-being of the minor” and there were no reasonable alternative means to 

protect Amanda (§ 361, subd. (c)(1)) due to unreported sexual abuse by a 

member of the household (id., subd. (c)(4)). The judge said she had some 

“issues with the mother’s credibility” in her testimony about belatedly finding 
12

out this was a reportable event and said she “just [didn’t] find the mother’s 

testimony credible.” The judge continued Amanda in the custody of Father

and ordered supervised visitation between Mother and Amanda at least twice 

a week. The judge found Mother was not entitled to reunification services 

under section 361.2, subdivision (b)(3) (In re Pedro Z. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 

12, 20–21), but ordered that Mother be provided informal child welfare 

services at the discretion of the Agency. The court ordered both parents to 

comply with the case plan and set future hearings for review under section 

364. Mother timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court lacked 

sufficient evidence for its order removing Amanda from her custody. To order 

removal from parental custody at a disposition hearing, the juvenile court 

must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the circumstances 

specified in section 361, subdivision (c) applies, including subdivision (c)(1), 

found by the court at disposition. To remove a child from a parent’s custody

under that subdivision, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing 

evidence that: (1) there is a substantial danger to the child’s physical health, 

safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being if the child is returned 

home, and (2) there are no reasonable means by which the child can be 

protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re T.W. (2013) 

214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Section 361, subdivision (c)(4), also allows 

removal if “[t]he minor . . . has been sexually abused . . . by a . . . member of 

his or her household, or other person known to his or her parent, and there 

are no reasonable means by which the minor can be protected from further 

sexual abuse or a substantial risk of sexual abuse without removing the 

minor from his or her parent.” Here, the court found removal of Amanda
13

from Mother’s custody was necessary for the reasons set forth in the Agency’s 

reports, outlined above.

On review of the removal order, we apply the substantial evidence test, 

bearing in mind the heightened standard of proof that applies in the trial 

court. (In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123; In re Isayah C. (2004) 

118 Cal.App.4th 684, 694–695; see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 

989, 1005.) “ ‘ “[W]e 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.” [Citation.] 

“We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but 

merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the 

trial court.” ’ ” (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)

To justify removal, the parent need not be dangerous, and the child 

need not have been actually harmed. The focus of the statute is on averting 

harm to the child. (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.) “In this 

regard, the court may consider the parent’s past conduct as well as present 

circumstances.” (Ibid.) Risk to a child’s physical health and safety may be

inherent in the absence of adequate supervision. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 

46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1650.) A parent’s denial about family problems is also a 

relevant factor to consider. (Id. at pp. 1657–1658.) “Although the court must 

consider alternatives to removal, it has broad discretion in making a 

dispositional order.” (Cole C., at p. 918.) A mother’s disbelief of her 

daughter’s claims of sexual abuse may support a removal order. (In re D.C. 

(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 46–48, 55–56, superseded by statute on other 

grounds as stated in In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 322.)
14

The evidence in this case supports the trial court’s findings and orders. 

Amanda self-reported sexual abuse to Mother but was at first disbelieved and 

treated dismissively. To say Mother exercised poor judgment is an 

understatement. On one view of the evidence, she practically facilitated the 

abuse by placing her naked 10-year-old daughter in bed next to her naked 

45-year-old boyfriend even after she had been told six months earlier he had 

touched the child’s vagina while putting her to bed. Mother not only failed to 

report the abuse but disbelieved her daughter and apparently worried more 

about falsely accusing her boyfriend than she did about maintaining 

Amanda’s safety. When Amanda told her plainly Jeff had rubbed his penis 

against her vagina, Mother’s first reaction was to research whether that was 

illegal. She instinctively feared she might get into trouble for failing to 

report Amanda’s allegation and seemed more worried about that than about 

the abuse.

Mother allowed Jeff to stay in the house for another three weeks, 

though perhaps she became more vigilant, until after Amanda’s CALICO 

interview, when the police removed him. Even after Amanda told her about

the January 14 molestation, Mother minimized the extent of the abuse by 

suggesting Amanda never told her Jeff had “intercourse” with her. And her 

definition of “intercourse” so as to exclude a man’s insertion of his penis a 

quarter-inch into a child’s vagina was certainly foreign to anyone trained in 

the law. (Pen. Code, §§ 261, 263; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 888 

[sexual intercourse is the penetration, “ ‘however slight,’ ” of a vagina by a 

penis].) Yet, when her daughter turned to her for help, she effectively donned

blinders.

We disagree with Mother that the court’s removal order was based on 

nothing but speculation. She cites In re Steve W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 
15

which involved an order removing an infant from the mother’s care after the 

father had been convicted of killing an older child. (Id. at pp. 12–15.) The 

mother testified she had no intent of resuming her relationship with the 

father. (Id. at p. 15.) The appellate court found the removal order had been 

improperly based on “speculation” that the mother “would enter a new 

relationship with yet another abusive type of person.” (Id. at pp. 16, 22.) In 

Steve W., however, the mother, though aware of the older child’s injuries, had 

received an explanation for the injuries which a doctor testified would have 

been believable to an untrained person. (Id. at p. 21.) Moreover, the infant 

in Steve W. had not been abused himself, and the mother was not guilty of 

the kind of emotional betrayal that was involved in this case. Here, the court 

had substantial evidence of Mother’s failure to supervise Amanda’s 

interactions with Jeff and of real harm to Amanda, both physical and 

emotional. Jeff offered no explanation and did not even deny the abuse, yet it 

was not clear by disposition if Mother understood and owned her role in the 

crisis.

At the time of the disposition, Amanda still was not ready to engage in 

family therapy because she was just starting to show more trust and open up 

in individual therapy, although she was ambivalent about therapy. Amanda 

was doing better in Father’s care, and she engaged in balanced activities, but 

the Agency’s reports suggest she had not yet had time to heal emotionally 

from Jeff’s molestation and Mother’s apparent lack of concern about it and 

disbelief of her reports. Amanda had not fully processed the sexual violation 

or worked through feelings of anger or abandonment she felt towards Mother. 

Until Amanda becomes more stabilized, the trial court was justified in 

finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that she remained at risk and 

should be removed from Mother’s care to permit her own mental recovery.
16

Mother continued to minimize the abuse, she placed responsibility on 

Amanda for her own failings, and she lacked insight into the damage she had 

done to Amanda by refusing to believe her and delaying the report of the 

molestations. The trial court was justified in concluding Mother had not fully 

comprehended by the time of the disposition hearing what she had done 

wrong or how to avoid the same error again, for she continued to blame 

Amanda’s lack of specificity and reluctance to talk about the abuse for her 

own lack of vigilance. Mother believed she had no role in the abuse, but the 

juvenile court had evidence to support a contrary finding.

Despite Mother’s rather egregious lapses in judgment, we see no reason 

to doubt her stated concern for Amanda’s welfare and her declared resolve to 

avoid such lapses in the future. Jeff has been removed from the household 

and there is no basis to assume Mother will ever permit a recurrence of the 

circumstances leading to the institution of these proceedings. It is incumbent 

on Mother to demonstrate that she is now prepared and capable to ensure 

that Amanda will feel safe and protected if she regains custody, and the court 

must take into account the possibility that extended estrangement from 

Amanda may itself have negative effects on the minor. Thus, although we 

find evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusions, close oversight is 

critical to ensure that the separation does not extend beyond the point that it 

is no longer in Amanda’s best interest.

III. DISPOSITION

The disposition orders filed September 17, 2020, are affirmed, including 

the order removing Amanda from Mother’s custody and placing her in 

Father’s care.

STREETER, J.

WE CONCUR:

POLLAK, P. J.

BROWN, J.