Filed 7/12/23 In re Galilea M. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re GALILEA M., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B320333

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

 22CCJP00554B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PATRICIA C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.
2

Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

___________________

Patricia C., the mother of now-15-year-old Galilea M., 

appeals the juvenile court’s March 30, 2022 disposition order 

removing Galilea from her custody after the court sustained a 

petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally), 

(b)(1) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse) and (j) (abuse of 

sibling),1 based on its findings that William M., Galilea’s father, 

had sexually abused Galilea’s now-18-year-old half-sister, 

Ruby G., starting when Ruby was three years old; William 

physically abused Ruby, Galilea and their older sibling Rene C.

when Rene was a child; William and Patricia had a history of 

engaging in violent altercations in the children’s presence; and 

Patricia failed to protect her children from the ongoing sexual 

and physical abuse. Without questioning the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction findings or the evidentiary bases for them, Patricia 

contends reasonable means existed to protect Galilea without 

removing her from her mother’s custody. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

With the dependency petition filed February 14, 2022 the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

submitted a lengthy detention report detailing 17-year-old Ruby’s 

accusations that Patricia’s boyfriend William (Galilea’s father) 

had sexually abused her over a lengthy period. In addition, Ruby 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
3

described William’s physical abuse, including an incident that 

Galilea had witnessed. Ruby had not told Patricia about the 

sexual abuse because she did not think her mother, who idolized 

William, would believe her.

The detention report also summarized the social worker’s 

interview with Rene, with whom Ruby and Galilea were then 

living (with Patricia’s agreement). According to Rene, when they 

all lived in Patricia’s home, William physically abused Rene and 

Patricia, but Rene intervened to prevent William from physically 

abusing Ruby and Galilea. For her part, Galilea reported that 

William had always been physically abusive toward her and 

Ruby, as well as to Patricia and Rene. 

When the social worker interviewed Patricia, Patricia 

indicated a willingness to protect Ruby if she insisted the 

allegations of sexual abuse were true, but expressed doubt as to 

Ruby’s truthfulness, explaining that Ruby had a tendency of 

lying and making a big deal of things. Patricia unequivocally 

stated, “I just don’t believe this,” and suggested Ruby fabricated 

the sexual abuse allegations so she could remain on her school’s 

dance team notwithstanding her bad grades. Although Patricia 

and William continued to live in the family residence, Patricia 

said they were no longer in a relationship and he was sleeping in 

a different room from her. 

The dependency petition filed February 14, 2022 pursuant 

to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (j), described 

William’s sexual abuse of Ruby; his physical abuse of Ruby, 

Galilea and Rene; William and Patricia’s history of domestic 

violence; and Patricia’s failure to protect her children from 

William. Two days later the court ordered Ruby and Galilea 

detained from Patricia’s care. 
4

The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed March 9, 2022, 

added more detail of William’s explosive anger and violence and 

included Patricia’s insistence during a further interview that 

William never hit Ruby or Galilea and was “very kind and loving” 

toward the children. Patricia again accused Ruby of lying about 

William’s sexual abuse. Patricia had moved out of the home but 

admitted she and William were together and explained she had 

moved only because her attorney told her it did not look good for 

her to continue living with William while the allegations of abuse 

were pending, not because she believed William had done 

anything wrong. 

At the jurisdiction hearing the court sustained an amended 

petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (d) and 

(j), finding true the allegations (among others) that William on 

numerous occasions sexually abused Ruby between the time she 

was three and 10 years old, including forcibly raping her, and 

that Patricia failed to take action to protect the child when she 

knew, or reasonably should have known, of the sexual abuse. In 

addition, the court found true the allegations that William 

physically abused Ruby and Galilea by slapping and spitting in 

Ruby’s face and choking Galilea and Patricia failed to protect her 

children when she knew, or reasonably should have known, they 

were being physically abused. The court also sustained the 

allegation that Patricia and William had a history of engaging in 

violent altercations in the children’s presence. 

Immediately turning to disposition, the court declared 

Ruby and Galilea dependent children of the court and ordered 

both children removed from parental custody and suitably placed, 

finding by clear and convincing evidence “there’s no reasonable 

means yet by which to protect them without removing them from 
5

their parents’ care.” Rejecting Patricia’s counsel’s request for a 

home-of-parent order, the juvenile court stated, “I cannot place 

the kids back with mom at this point in time, even though she 

supposedly has separated from [William]. She has yet to 

acknowledge that these events have occurred and is blaming the 

child or children for why they are here before the court.” 

The court ordered family reunification services for Patricia 

and William, directing Patricia to participate in parenting 

education, sexual abuse awareness counsel, individual counseling 

and a support group for victims of domestic violence. Patricia 

was restricted to monitored visitation in a neutral setting for six 

hours per week (with Department discretion to liberalize). 

Patricia filed a timely notice of appeal. In her briefing 

Patricia does not challenge any of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

findings and, because Ruby turned 18 years old in October 2022, 

argues only that the court erred in removing Galilea from her 

care, contending reasonable means existed to protect the child

without removal.

DISCUSSION

1. Governing Law and Standard of Review

The paramount purpose of the dependency laws “is to 

provide maximum safety and protection for children who are 

currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being 

neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, 

and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk 

of that harm.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a); see In re Cole L. (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 

289.) 

After a dependency petition has been sustained pursuant to 

section 300, the court may order a child removed from the 
6

physical custody of a parent based on its finding, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that the child would be at substantial risk of 

physical or emotional harm if the parent were to live with the 

child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can 

be protected without removal. (§ 361, subds. (c)(1) [parent with 

whom the child resided at the time the petition was initiated], 

(d) [parent with whom the child did not reside at the time the 

petition was initiated];

2 In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 

135; see In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 347.) “The 

parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been 

actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the 

statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re D.B. (2018)

26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328; accord, In re T.V., at pp. 135-136; In re 

T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

Because an order for removal under section 361, 

subdivisions (c) and (d), must be based on clear and convincing 

evidence, we “must determine whether the record, viewed as a 

whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable 

trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability 

demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B. 

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005; see In re Nathan E. (2021) 

61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123 [“[i]n reviewing for substantial evidence 

to support a dispositional order removing a child, we ‘keep[] in 

mind that the [juvenile] court was required to make its order 

based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence’”]; 

see generally In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“‘In reviewing 

2 Both Patricia’s and the Department’s counsel on appeal cite

section 361, subdivision (c)(1), as the governing provision. 

However, Galilea was residing with her half-sibling Rene when 

the petition was filed in February 2022, not with Patricia.
7

a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if 

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports 

them. “In making this determination, 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.” 

[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”’”].)

The “appellant has the burden to demonstrate there is no 

evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the 

findings or orders.” (In re D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at pp. 328-

329.)

2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal Order

Emphasizing that she had agreed to follow the court’s

orders that she participate in sexual abuse awareness counseling

and attend a support group for victims of domestic violence, as 

well as that she had moved away from William, Patricia argues 

her cooperation with the Department and the court demonstrated 

there were reasonable means to protect Galilea without removing 

her from her mother’s custody. Yet, as the court found at 

disposition, Patricia remained insistent that the sexual and 

physical abuse suffered by Ruby and Galilea had never occurred 

and confessed she remained in a relationship with their abuser,

whom she had described as a “very kind and loving” man and 

with whom she had a significant history of domestic violence. 

Patricia’s steadfast denial of the abuse of her children and 

her lack of insight into her role in allowing it to continue amply 
8

justified the court’s decision to remove Galilea from Patricia’s 

custody, at least until she made progress in the court-ordered 

programs identified. (See In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944,

967 [“‘the juvenile court must determine whether a child will be 

in substantial danger if permitted to remain in the parent’s 

physical custody, considering not only the parent’s past conduct,

but also current circumstances, and the parent’s response to the 

conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention’”]; In re

I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520 [same]; In re D.B., supra, 

26 Cal.App.5th at p. 332 [same]; see also In re A.F., supra,

3 Cal.App.5th at p. 293 [“[i]n light of mother’s failure to recognize 

the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no 

reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the 

minor remain in her home”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 

203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne cannot correct a problem one 

fails to acknowledge”].) Given Patricia’s history with William 

and her ongoing relationship with him, the juvenile court 

reasonably determined that unannounced home visits by the 

Department’s social workers or no-contact protective orders 

would not adequately protect Galilea and there were no other 

reasonable measures by which the child could safely remain in 

Patricia’s custody. 

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s March 30, 2022 disposition order is 

affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J. FEUER, J.