Filed 2/1/24 In re G.V. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 FIVE

In re G.V., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

___________________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B328340

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 19CCJP02167C-E)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Dismissed.

David M. Yorton, Jr., under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
3

C.C. (Mother) is the mother of three children: a 10-year-old

daughter G.V. and two sons, nine-year-old J.C. and two-year-old 

M.C. (collectively, Minors).1 The juvenile court assumed 

dependency jurisdiction over Minors after finding G.V.’s 

stepfather sexually abused G.V. and Mother reasonably should 

have known of the abuse and failed to protect her. G.V.’s 

stepfather does not appeal the sex abuse finding against him, 

which means jurisdiction over the Minors will continue 

regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Under the 

circumstances, we shall dismiss the appeal as moot but also 

briefly explain for Mother’s benefit why substantial evidence in 

any event supports at least one of the jurisdiction findings

against her. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mother Learns of the Sexual Abuse

In June 2022, Mother and Minors traveled to Mexico to 

visit relatives. While in Mexico, G.V. divulged to an aunt that 

her stepfather, who was M.C.’s biological father, (Stepfather) had 

sexually abused her. She did not provide the aunt with any 

details of the abuse and asked her aunt not to disclose the abuse 

to Mother. 

Eventually, the aunt called Mother in September 2022 and 

relayed what G.V. told her. That same day, after G.V. confirmed 

that Stepfather had “touched” her, Mother scheduled a medical 

exam for G.V. 

1 These were the Minors’ ages when dependency proceedings 

began. 
4

In the days that elapsed waiting for the medical exam 

appointment, Mother discussed with Stepfather G.V.’s accusation 

of sexual abuse and he denied abusing her. On the day of G.V.’s 

physical exam, Stepfather, at Mother’s request, moved out of the 

family home. 

G.V. told the examining physician that Stepfather made 

her watch videos of “men with ladies shaking butts” and then 

“made her shake her butt like that.” She also advised Stepfather 

had touched her vagina and she “seemed to say he put his penis 

near her vagina but not inside because he knew [M]other would 

leave him.” 

Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers interviewed 

G.V. in response to a report by the examining physician. During 

the police interview, G.V. disclosed additional abuse. In addition 

to forcing her to watch pornographic videos, she stated Stepfather 

sexually abused her approximately 10 times over the course of 

the last two years and “touch[ed] her vagina, buttocks, and chest 

with his hands,” forced her to “lick his penis,” and “inserted his 

erect penis into [her] vagina.” The police advised Mother that the 

matter would be reported to the Los Angeles County Department 

of Child and Family Services (the Department). 

B. The Department Investigates the Abuse Allegations

The day after the medical examination and police 

interview, a Department social worker questioned Mother and 

G.V. at the family home, a small studio apartment. 

Mother told the social worker that she repeatedly asked 

Stepfather to move out of the family home after learning of the 

abuse but each time G.V. would intervene and prevent him from 

leaving by blocking the door. Stepfather eventually moved out 
5

when Minors were not present in the apartment. When asked 

why she did not call the Department or file a police report during 

the six days that elapsed between learning of the abuse 

allegation and taking G.V. to the doctor, Mother provided several 

reasons. Mother professed that she was “not saying I don’t 

believe [G.V.]” because she was her daughter, but Mother 

believed G.V. was making a “serious accusation.” Mother claimed

she had not seen or heard any inappropriate conduct by 

Stepfather while he lived in the family’s home. Mother also 

stated she did not find an opportunity to speak with G.V.in more 

detail about the nature of the abuse before Stepfather moved out 

of the home because of the close quarters at the family home and 

the presence of her other children. Mother also opined G.V. 

should undergo a “lie detector” test because she previously made

sexual abuse allegations against her biological father that were 

not substantiated. Mother additionally shared she had preexisting concerns about G.V.’s mental health and had previously 

requested a mental assessment of G.V. 

G.V. repeated the allegations she had made previously to 

the doctor and the police about watching pornographic videos and 

then being made to recreate with Stepfather the sex acts 

depicted. G.V. also disclosed that in addition to nonconsensual

vaginal and oral sex, Stepfather penetrated her anus “so many 

times [she did not] know the number.” G.V. explained Stepfather 

would attempt to manipulate her by buying her toys and commit 

the acts of abuse when Mother was at work (Stepfather would 

track Mother’s whereabouts via cellphone and terminate the 

abuse when Mother was returning home). G.V. told the social 

worker that the abuse stopped when she was ten years old. 
6

The Department social worker also interviewed Stepfather 

and he denied ever touching G.V. or her siblings inappropriately. 

Stepfather told the social worker that G.V. had a history of 

making false accusations against both classmates and adults, 

including allegations of inappropriate touching and sexual abuse. 

Stepfather agreed, however, that it would be best if he did not 

return to Mother’s home until after G.V. was no longer a minor. 

The social worker also interviewed other family members. 

J.C. denied suffering from or witnessing sexual abuse by 

Stepfather or anyone else. The maternal grandmother, who lived 

near the family home and had regular contact with the family

(including providing child care), denied observing any 

inappropriate conduct by Stepfather or any fearful conduct by 

G.V. toward Stepfather. The maternal grandmother also 

reported G.V. had a habit of lying and had told lies about the 

maternal grandmother to Mother. 

In addition to family members, Department personnel

interviewed G.V.’ s fifth grade teacher and her therapist. The 

teacher, who had also taught G.V. in second and third grade, 

reported G.V. struggled to tell the truth and had been caught 

telling lies at school often. Although she found Mother to be a 

responsive parent, the teacher opined Mother currently appeared 

distant from G.V. and seemed not to believe the sexual abuse 

allegations against Stepfather. G.V.’s therapist opined Mother 

was dismissive of her daughter’s allegations and appeared to 

think G.V. was lying. 
7

C. G.V. Participates in a Forensic Interview and 

Forensic Medical Examination

With a criminal investigation still underway as a result of 

the report to the LAPD, G.V. was scheduled to participate in a 

forensic interview. Just before the interview took place, Mother 

met privately with the social worker assigned to the dependency 

investigation and told the social worker that G.V. did not want to 

talk to anyone because her allegations were “a lie.” Mother also 

informed the social worker that M.C. (who was with them at the 

time) was sick and Mother told G.V. to “hurry” because M.C. was 

sick. The social worker informed Mother the interview would go 

forward as part of the criminal investigation but G.V. would not 

be forced to talk (and if G.V. refused to talk the forensic 

interviewer would know how to proceed).

2

 

During the forensic interview, G.V. initially said her abuse 

allegations were “all a lie” and she wanted “all this stuff to end” 

because of the emotional pain it was causing her and Mother. 

Almost immediately thereafter, however, G.V. reversed course 

and affirmed Stepfather had touched her inappropriately. She 

began by describing in detail the most recent act of sexual abuse: 

anal penetration that occurred in the home’s bathroom on a 

Saturday while Mother was asleep. Stepfather stopped when he 

heard Mother waking up and, according to G.V., Mother “didn’t 

even really notice.”

When asked to describe the first incident of sexual abuse, 

which occurred when she was in the fourth grade, G.V. provided

2 The forensic interview, which was recorded, was observed 

contemporaneously by the social worker and a police detective. 

The audio recording of the interview was later transcribed. 
8

an account of abuse that proceeded in largely the same fashion. 

Later in the day during this first instance of abuse, G.V. said she 

woke Mother up and complained to her about pain in her anus. 

In response to G.V.’s complaint, Mother asked if Stepfather had 

done “anything” to her. G.V. denied any abuse by Stepfather and 

explained she “felt pain because I hit myself.” 

When asked about other incidents of abuse, G.V. explained 

they followed a similar pattern, usually occurring on the weekend 

and in the bathroom, but related that the sexually abusive acts 

varied and included vaginal and oral penetration. As with the 

anal penetration, the vaginal penetration caused G.V. pain to the 

point of making her cry. 

Mother took G.V. to a restroom break while the forensic 

interview was underway. After returning from the break, G.V. 

once again told the forensic interviewer that her allegations were 

a lie and she wanted the proceedings to be over so everything 

would “go back to how it was.” But not long thereafter, G.V. told 

the interviewer that “all the touching did happen” and admitted 

she said it was a lie because she wanted “it all to end” and she 

was worried “they’re going to take me away.”3

A few days after the forensic interview, G.V. underwent a 

forensic medical examination. She told the examiner she was 

being examined “[b]ecause my stepfather touched me” (and added 

3

J.C. also participated in a forensic interview. He denied 

suffering or witnessing any abuse. When asked about the 

allegations concerning his sister, he related he had not witnessed 

any abuse and Mother told him the allegations were “not true 

because [Stepfather] is good.” 
9

more graphic detail). G.V. reported Stepfather “would instruct 

her not [to] tell her mother and would buy her toys.” 

The findings from the anogenital exam were “within 

normal limits.” As a result of her disclosures, G.V. was also 

tested for various sexually transmitted infections, the results of 

which were negative. The forensic medical report advised that 

“[a] negative sexually transmitted infection test does NOT 

EXCLUDE a history of sexual abuse, and a normal exam 

CANNOT EXCLUDE a history of sexual abuse including sexual 

abuse in which there was penetration.” 

D. The Department’s Dependency Petition, Which the 

Juvenile Court Sustains

Following the forensic interview and examination, the 

Department filed a three-count dependency petition alleging 

sexual abuse of G.V. by Stepfather and a failure by Mother to 

protect G.V. from the abuse. Although the petition contained 

three separate counts under Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 300, subdivisions (b) (substantial risk of suffering serious 

physical harm from a failure or inability to protect or supervise a 

child), (d) (sexual abuse by a member of the household or the 

failure of a parent to protect from sexual abuse), and (j)

(substantial risk of abuse as a result of abuse of a sibling), the 

factual allegations supporting each count were identical.4 As to 

Mother specifically, the petition alleged she “reasonably should 

have known of [Stepfather’s] ongoing sexual abuse of the child 

and failed to protect the child. Furthermore, Mother repeatedly 

4 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
10

questioned if the child was being truthful regarding the sexual 

abuse allegations. Such sexual abuse of [G.V.] and the mother’s 

failure to protect the child endangers the child’s physical health, 

safety[,] and well-being and places child and the child’s 

siblings . . . at risk of serious physical harm, damage, danger, 

sexual abuse and failure to protect.” 

In advance of the adjudication hearing, a Department 

investigator re-interviewed G.V., Mother, and Stepfather. G.V. 

reaffirmed Stepfather sexually abused her and maintained that

“everything [she] said is the truth.” When asked if she felt 

Mother believed her, G.V. responded, “I do and I don’t.” Mother 

told the investigator that G.V. “tends to lie a lot” and may be 

bipolar but she (Mother) did not disbelieve her daughter’s 

allegations. As Mother put it to the investigator, “if I did not 

believe [G.V.] then I wouldn’t have kicked [Stepfather] out.” 

Stepfather continued to deny all of the abuse allegations but 

reiterated his belief that he should not return to Mother’s home 

until after G.V. turned 18 years old. 

The Department recommended the juvenile court assert

jurisdiction over Minors for two principal reasons: the consistency 

with which G.V. described the abuse in interviews with social 

workers, law enforcement, medical professionals, and forensic 

investigators; and Mother’s doubts about G.V.’s veracity and 

failure to take immediate steps to protect her children, including 

allowing Stepfather to remain in the family home for almost a 

week after learning of the abuse. The Department observed that 

the family home is “a studio with very minimal space between the 

beds and the bathroom is next to the beds. It is concerning that 

[Mother] never heard anything while the child was being sexually 

assaulted in the same room or the bathroom. Mother should 
11

have reasonably have known or had some suspicion that her 

daughter was being sexually abused.” Because Minors expressed 

a willingness to continue living with Mother, the Department 

recommended they remain in her custody and care. 

On April 3, 2023, the juvenile court held an adjudication 

hearing. After admitting into evidence the Department’s reports 

(including the recordings and transcripts of G.V. and J.C.’s 

forensic interviews) and hearing argument from counsel, the 

court sustained the dependency petition’s allegations as pled. 

The court found the video of G.V.’s interview with the forensic 

interviewer and “the graphic detail” she provided of the abuse to 

be “very compelling” evidence of the truth of the petition’s abuse 

allegations; overall, the court found G.V. to be a “very credible” 

witness. As for the failure-to-protect allegation, the court found 

Mother “didn’t protect her child when she had the opportunity to 

[do so],” and cited in particular Mother’s decision to “continue[ ] 

to allow this man to be in the house” after learning of the abuse. 

The juvenile court removed Minors from their respective 

fathers but allowed them to remain in the care and custody of 

Mother. 

II. DISCUSSION

“A case becomes moot when events “‘render[ ] it impossible 

for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor of plaintiff, to 

grant him [or her] any effect[ive] relief.’” [Citation.]” (In re D.P. 

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276; accord, In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 

Cal.App.5th 156, 163 [“‘the critical factor in considering whether 

a dependency appeal is moot is whether the appellate court can 

provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error’”].) “In th[e 

dependency] context, relief is effective when it ‘can have a 
12

practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status.’ 

[Citation.] It follows that, to show a need for effective relief, the 

plaintiff must first demonstrate that he or she has suffered a 

change in legal status.” (D.P., supra, at 277; see also id. at 276 

[“For relief to be ‘effective,’ two requirements must be met. First, 

the plaintiff must complain of an ongoing harm. Second, the 

harm must be redressable or capable of being rectified by the 

outcome the plaintiff seeks”].) In other words, a parent must 

“demonstrate[ ] a specific legal or practical consequence that 

would be avoided upon reversal” to overcome mootness and 

warrant merits review. (Id. at 283.) 

Mother’s appeal is moot. The unchallenged jurisdiction 

finding against Stepfather supports the juvenile court’s exercise 

of jurisdiction over Minors regardless of whether the failure to

protect finding against Mother is supported by substantial 

evidence. (D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at 283 [“‘“[a]s long as there is 

one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that 

another might be inappropriate”’”]; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 

Cal.App.4th 297, 308 [“‘[A] jurisdictional finding good against one 

parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a 

dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within 

one of the statutory definitions of a dependent’”].) Although the 

appeal is moot and we will dismiss it for that reason, we briefly 

describe, for Mother’s benefit, why the petition’s allegations that 

she failed to protect G.V. were supported by substantial evidence. 

(See, e.g., In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451 

[affirming finding of jurisdiction over minor because the father 

did not challenge all bases for jurisdiction, but “not[ing]” the 

court’s view on the challenged finding “[f]or [the] Father’s 

benefit”]; see also In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.) 
13

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

assume dependency jurisdiction over a child when “[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 . . . [¶] (A) [t]he 

failure or inability of the child’s parent . . . to adequately 

supervise or protect the child. [¶] (B) The willful or negligent 

failure of the child’s parent . . . to adequately supervise or protect 

the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child 

has been left.” Section 300, subdivision (d) similarly but more 

specifically provides for dependency jurisdiction when a parent or 

guardian “has failed to adequately protect [a] child from sexual 

abuse when the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should 

have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse.” We 

review juvenile court jurisdiction findings for substantial 

evidence, drawing “‘all reasonable inferences from the evidence to 

support the findings . . . [and] review[ing] the record in the light 

most favorable to the court’s determinations . . . .’ [Citations.]” 

(In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633.)

A failure to protect can manifest itself in a number of ways. 

For example, it can include a parent’s failure to remove a child 

from an abuser’s presence or to report the abuse to the 

authorities. (See, e.g., In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 

860, 861-862, 863 [dependency jurisdiction warranted where the 

mother failed to protect her daughter by allowing her to remain 

in the care of her father after the daughter told mother he raped 

her].) In addition, a parent’s refusal to believe a child’s abuse 

allegations can constitute a failure to protect. (See, e.g., In re 

J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439 [dependency jurisdiction 

warranted where the mother disbelieved her daughter’s 

disclosures of sexual abuse]; In re Maria R. (2010) 185 
14

Cal.App.4th 48, 60 [affirming failure to protect finding because 

“[r]ather than protect the girls, [mother] denied that any abuse 

had occurred and maintained that the girls were lying”], 

disapproved in part on another ground in I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th 

766; In re Katrina W. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 441, 445, 446-447 

[holding substantial evidence supported juvenile court’s exercise 

of jurisdiction where father sexually molested daughter and 

mother was in denial of the molestation].)

On this record, there is substantial evidence supporting the 

juvenile court’s finding that Mother failed to protect G.V. and her 

siblings from Stepfather’s sexual abuse, of which mother knew or 

at least should have known. When G.V. complained to Mother of 

pain in her anus the day Stepfather began his sexual abuse, 

Mother—without any apparent prompting by G.V.—immediately 

inquired whether Stepfather was the cause of the pain. That 

unusual, unprompted question is strong evidence that Mother 

was for quite some time aware of at least a danger that 

Stepfather was sexually abusing G.V. In addition, in light of the 

close quarters of the family home and the repeated episodes of 

painful abuse, the juvenile court was justified in concluding 

Mother at least should have been aware that the abuse was 

occurring. Moreover, once indisputably on notice of the 

inappropriate touching of G.V., Mother did not take decisive 

action: she did not promptly report the matter to law enforcement 

(or the Department) or compel Stepfather to leave the home 

immediately. Mother also never sought to learn more from G.V. 

about the reported abuse and made it obvious to other family 

members, social workers, investigators, teachers, therapists, and 
15

forensic interviewers that she doubted the veracity of G.V.’s 

allegations.5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.

5 G.V.’s behavior after returning from the restroom break 

during the forensic interview provides a basis to conclude Mother 

was not just doubtful about the veracity of G.V.’s abuse claims

but also was making affirmative efforts to get G.V. to recant the 

abuse allegations. It perhaps goes without saying, but that too is 

solid evidence of a failure to adequately protect from a known 

danger of sexual abuse.