1

Filed 10/14/21 In re E.B. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re E.B. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E076490

(Super.Ct.Nos. J284531 & 

 J284532)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. 

Pace, Judge. Affirmed.

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

G.B. (father) contends there was insufficient evidence to support a juvenile court’s 

jurisdictional findings under Welfare and Institutions Code1section 300, subdivisions (b), 

(c), (d), and (j), regarding his children, G.B. and E.B. (the children). Father argues those 

findings should be reversed, and the dispositional order should accordingly be vacated as 

moot. He also contends the court erred in denying him reunification services under 

section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2020, the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services 

(CFS) filed separate section 300 petitions on behalf of the children. G.B.’s petition 

contained allegations under subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (d) (sexual abuse). 

E.B.’s petition contained allegations under subdivisions (b) and (j) (abuse of sibling). 

G.B. was 12 years old at the time, and E.B. was six. By June 11, 2020, CFS filed 

amended petitions. G.B.’s amended petition alleged that she came within the provisions 

of section 300, subdivision (b), (c) (serious emotional damage), (d), and (j). It included

allegations that her mother, E.G. (mother)2 and father both sexually abused her, each

parent should have known the other was sexually abusing her and failed to protect her, 

both parents had histories of substance abuse and domestic violence, both parents 

sexually abused G.B.’s half sibling, I.G., and G.B. was suffering severe emotional harm 

1

 All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, 

unless otherwise indicated.

2

 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
3

as a result of sexual abuse that occurred in both parents’ care. E.B.’s amended petition 

alleged that she came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b), (d), and (j) 

and included allegations that father and mother (the parents) knew or reasonably should 

have known E.B. was being sexually abused by her sister, G.B., and failed to protect her, 

each parent knew or reasonably should have known the other parent was sexually abusing 

G.B., both parents were sexually abusing the half sibling, I.G., and both parents had 

histories of substance abuse and domestic violence.

The social worker filed a detention report stating that CFS received a referral with 

allegations of sexual abuse and general neglect of G.B on February 4, 2020. The referral 

alleged that G.B. took pictures of her bare breasts and sent them to a male student at 

school via a cell phone and then messaged him through her parents’ Instagram account, 

stating that she had taken pills, overdosed, and was taken to the hospital. When she was 

taken to the school office, she said she had been cutting herself and wanted to die.

On February 11, 2020, CFS received another referral for sexual abuse of G.B.

Two days later, the social worker met with G.B. at Loma Linda Behavioral Health Center

(Loma Linda). G.B. acknowledged she had suicidal ideations and self-injurious 

behaviors. She said she started cutting herself at the age of 11. She also said father 

began touching her inappropriately when she was five or six years old, and when she was 

eight years old, he put his penis inside her vagina. She said he did that on at least two 

occasions and threatened to hurt her if she told anyone. G.B. admitted she took nude 

photos of herself and sent them to a classmate at school and was expelled.
4

On March 2, 2020, the CFS social worker received a phone call from the social 

worker at Loma Linda, saying G.B. was ready to be discharged. However, G.B. said that 

if she had to return home to father, she was going to kill herself. It was subsequently 

determined that G.B. would be admitted to Loma Linda for being a danger to herself.

On March 2, 2020, another CFS social worker interviewed E.B., who denied any 

sexual abuse by father. However, she reported that G.B. claimed father was “raping her 

at night,” but she thought G.B. was lying. E.B. said G.B. had her watch videos of “boys 

jerking off,” and encouraged her to take naked pictures of her vagina, which G.B. shared 

on social media. G.B. also took naked pictures of her. E.B. said G.B. encouraged her to 

attempt to kill herself so they could be in the hospital together. She further said G.B. was 

“sexual in the house,” and said she “has grabbed the mother and the father in their private 

parts.”

The social worker reviewed a previous CFS investigation from 2014. In that case, 

mother’s oldest daughter, I.G., reported she was sexually abused by father, who was her 

stepfather. I.G. was in a legal guardianship with her maternal grandparents.3 She 

reported that in 2012 she spent the night with the parents and G.B. She and G.B. took a 

bath together and were playing around in the room naked, while the parents were having 

sex in another room. I.G. said they invited her and G.B. to get in bed with them, so they 

did. Then they “all began kissing and licking on each other’s private parts.” I.G. said 

3

 The social worker subsequently reported that I.G.’s legal guardians were 

actually the maternal stepgrandparents.
5

father started touching and kissing her private part with his tongue. The next day she 

returned home, and her legal guardian filed a police report.

On March 3, 2020, the social worker interviewed G.B. a second time, and G.B. 

described more than one occasion in which father touched her breasts, licked her body, 

and licked her vagina. She said the last occurrence was approximately two years ago. 

The social worker, however, noted that there was a prior referral call on February 11, 

2020, which stated that G.B. said the last incident of sexual abuse was in January 2020.

The social worker further observed that G.B. reported father licked her body and vagina, 

which was the same abuse reported by I.G. in 2014, and that G.B. and I.G. had not had 

any contact in many years. 

On March 6, 2020, the social worker received a phone call from a police officer, 

who said he had spoken to I.G. I.G. reported that father raped her when she was eight or 

nine years old, that the parents touched her breasts and vagina, and that they got G.B. to 

go in their bedroom and take her clothes off, and they touched her inappropriately. That 

same day, the social worker spoke to the maternal stepgrandmother (I.G.’s legal 

guardian), who said that, approximately eight years prior, I.G. visited the parents, and 

they molested her on the first night. I.G. called her the next morning crying and wanted 

her stepgrandmother to pick her up. When the stepgrandmother arrived to pick her up, 

G.B. wanted to leave with them as well.

The court held a detention hearing on March 12, 2020, and detained the children in 

CFS’s care with authority to place them with appropriate relatives. It ordered CFS to 

provide services pending the development of a case plan. The court set the matter for 
6

hearing on April 3, 2020. However, the hearing was continued to May 8, 2020, and then 

June 12, 2020.

On May 27, 2020, the social worker filed an informational memorandum with the 

court and reported, in part, that G.B. AWOL’d4frequently from her prior placement. 

G.B. reported using alcohol and methamphetamine and having sexual relations with a 19-

year-old. A child and family team (CFT) meeting was held on April 7, 2020, to discuss 

the risks of her AWOL behavior, substance abuse, and promiscuity. Despite the CFT

meeting, G.B. continued to AWOL and claimed to have been sexually trafficked out.

The social worker reported that an alternate placement was sought in a different county to 

distance her from the alleged trafficker. G.B. moved to a new placement on April 24, 

2020, but continued to AWOL. The social worker further reported that G.B. had been 

hospitalized several times for self-harm.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

The social worker filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 8, 2020, 

recommending that the court sustain the petitions and deny services to both parents under 

various subdivisions under section 361.5. G.B. was living in a group home, and E.B. was 

living with a nonrelative extended family member.

The social worker reported that she spoke with G.B. on March 27, 2020. G.B. 

denied sexual abuse by mother but maintained that father had sexually abused her. She 

said that when she was five years old, he groped her by touching her vagina with his 

4

 AWOL stands for “absent without leave.” (Perez v. Merit Systems Protection 

Board (1991) 931 F.2d 853, 854.) 
7

hands. She recalled another incident when he put his penis in the tip of her vagina. She 

disclosed another incident with I.G. when father took off their clothing and licked their 

vaginas, while mother and the maternal stepgrandmother were talking in the front yard.

Another time, father came into G.B.’s room around midnight and told her to take her 

clothes off. When she refused, he took her clothes off and stuck his penis in her vagina. 

She could not remember her age but recalled living in Lucerne Valley at the time. G.B. 

then recalled a time in third grade when father told her to take off her clothes, and he 

ejaculated in her face. When she was 10 years old, he came into her room, took his penis 

out, and told her to suck it. She denied that mother touched her inappropriately or 

sexually abused her or E.B. 

The social worker further reported that G.B. was diagnosed at Loma Linda with 

Major Depressive Disorder without Psychotic Features, Bulimia Nervosa, Generalized 

Anxiety, substance use disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Furthermore, G.B. 

indicated she had been cutting herself daily, since her discharge. G.B. was on several 

medications for her mental health issues, continued to have suicidal ideations, and 

claimed she heard voices when in distress. She also attempted to engage in a sexual 

relationship with a peer at Loma Linda. The social worker reported that G.B. was 

described as being hypersexual.

The social worker also reported that father denied the allegations of sexually 

abusing G.B. and I.G. He said the two girls had been in contact for the last year and 

claimed that I.G. was a trigger to G.B. acting out. He said he caught G.B. watching 

pornography on a cell phone when she was eight years old. The social worker further 
8

reported that father had prior dependency cases concerning different children from 2000-

2004, and he was not offered reunification services due to two prison sentences for 

having a methamphetamine lab in the home. Father’s parental rights were terminated on 

August 15, 2001.

5

Additionally, the social worker reported that E.B. said G.B. tried to suffocate her 

with a pillow. She also said G.B. would always do group chats with boys and show them 

her breasts. E.B. denied that anyone touched her private parts or that she had seen

anyone else’s private parts. 

The social worker observed that the parents denied the allegations and appeared to 

be blaming the children, the internet, G.B.’s friends, and G.B.’s mental health for the

allegations. The social worker stated that, although G.B. appeared to embellish and 

“create[] a more colorful version of events,” CFS believed the parents did sexually abuse

her and I.G. The social worker opined that G.B.’s acting out behaviors were indicative of 

severe sexual abuse, and she was exhibiting telltale signs of severe trauma. 

The court held a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on June 12, 2020, and continued 

the matter to July 21, 2020. The hearing was continued several times and was eventually 

held on January 6 and 7, 2021. (See post.)

Additional Information for the Court

On September 15, 2020, the social worker filed an informational memorandum 

and reported that G.B. was located in Utah but was brought back to California on 

5

 The record does not show which of father’s children the dependency cases 

concerned or why his parental rights were terminated.
9

September 10, 2020. G.B. completed a forensic sexual abuse examination on September 

11, 2020, and the results were pending. 

The social worker filed another memorandum on September 18, 2020, and 

reported that G.B. was placed in a group home on September 11, 2020, after returning 

from Utah. However, she absconded from the group home and was found unconscious 

and under the influence. G.B. reported that she takes methamphetamine and heroin.

In another informational memorandum filed on October 7, 2020, the social worker 

reported that G.B. continued to abscond from placement and would return under the 

influence most times. The results of the September 11, 2020 forensic examination could 

not confirm or negate sexual abuse. G.B. completed another examination on September 

18, 2020, and the results were pending. The forensic interviewer reported that G.B. 

disclosed ongoing sexual abuse by father, beginning at age five. G.B. reported a time 

when she was in the bathroom with her pants down and father came in and fondled her 

vagina. She also recalled a time when she was nine years old, and he penetrated his penis 

into her vagina, and “it hurt real bad.” She said when she was 11 years old, father forced 

her to orally copulate him, and when they heard mother coming, he pulled up his pants. 

G.B. denied that mother ever sexually abused her. In light of the interview, CFS 

dismissed the sexual abuse allegations against mother and amended its recommendation 

to offer her family maintenance services.

Police Report

The social worker filed a copy of a police report stating that an officer interviewed 

G.B. on February 13, 2020. She told the officer father first sexually abused her when she 
10

was approximately five years old. She said she was getting out of the shower when he

approached her in the bathroom, and she was wearing nothing but a towel. He put his

hand on her bare vagina. He then threatened to hurt her if she told anyone he touched her 

inappropriately. The second incident also happened when she was five when she was 

sleeping in her bed and woke up to father touching her vagina with his hand. He digitally 

penetrated her vagina with one or several fingers. G.B. said the first time he put his penis 

inside her vagina was when she was eight years old. She fell asleep in his bed and woke 

up naked. He had the tip of his penis inside her and “tried to go further,” but she pushed 

him off and ran to her bedroom. The next incident occurred when she was nine years old 

when she was visiting her grandmother on her birthday. She went to sleep with I.G. in 

her room, and father entered the room, took both of their shorts and underwear off, and 

orally copulated them. G.B. said the last incident occurred in January 2020. She was 

playing a videogame in her room when father came in and told her to take off her clothes. 

When she refused, he forcefully took her clothes off, unzipped his pants, and put his 

penis in her vagina. 

The police officer asked G.B. if she could describe father’s penis, and she initially 

said she had never seen it. She then recalled an incident that occurred when she was 10 

years old; father entered her bedroom, unzipped his pants, placed his penis on her face, 

and told her to “suck it.” When the officer pointed out she previously said she had never

seen his penis, she sat quiet for a minute, and then said she had seen it and went on to 

describe it. The officer also noted she had some inconsistencies in her story, so he asked 

her to tell him again what happened in January 2020. G.B. said after she got home from 
11

school, her sister was playing a videogame in the living room, and she was in her 

bedroom. Father entered and told her to take off her shirt. When she refused, he 

threatened to hit her, so she removed her shirt and bra. He unzipped his pants and started 

to masturbate and fondle her at the same time. He eventually told her to lay on her back, 

and he ejaculated on her face.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

The court held a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, beginning on January

6, 2021. G.B. testified that none of what she had told the social worker about father 

sexually abusing her was true. She then said she was not going to answer any questions.

When asked why she made the disclosures if they were untrue, she said her grandmother 

(the one I.G. lived with) told her that if she made the allegations against her parents, 

Child Protective Services would take her away, and she could go live with her. G.B. said 

her grandmother promised her an iPhone and a house by the beach if she made the 

allegations. G.B. cussed throughout her testimony and said she “want[ed] this to be all 

dismissed,” so she could just go home. On cross-examination, G.B. said people did not 

believe her, and when asked why she thought that, she said, “Because I lie a lot.”

Father testified at the hearing and said he did not think the children should be 

removed from his and mother’s custody because they were “really good parents.” He 

continued to deny ever sexually assaulting or molesting anyone. 

The social worker testified that G.B. was interviewed at the Children’s 

Assessment Center (CAC) on September 18, 2020. The social worker was not present for 

the interview but watched a recording of the interview and talked to the forensic 
12

interviewer. She testified that during the interview, G.B. did not say the maternal 

grandmother told her to lie about the allegations. Rather, she was consistent with her 

sexual abuse allegations and did not recant anything. The social worker further testified 

that it was very common for children to recant sexual abuse allegations. She believed 

G.B. was sexually abused by father because her behavior at a very young age showed

“very typical signs of a child who has been sexually abused.” The social worker 

specified that G.B. was hypersexualized and was looking at pornography at age eight, and 

it was very uncommon for a child of that age to be interested in sexual conduct. 

The social worker further testified that G.B.’s statements were very consistent 

with the various people who interviewed her, including police officers, detention 

workers, the forensic interviewer, and the social worker herself. The social worker also 

said G.B.’s conduct, including her high-risk behavior, her desire for all of this to be over, 

and the recanting of her statements, were also very typical of a child who had been 

sexually abused. When asked her opinion about the fact there were discrepancies in 

G.B.’s stories regarding her age or time, the social worker said it was all trauma-related, 

and there was “going to be blockage of memory” and “everything will be convoluted.”

The social worker also testified that she investigated a referral of E.B. acting out 

sexually to her caregivers’ children. E.B. told the two young children she was staying 

with to take off their clothes. She then touched their genital areas and had them touch her 

genitals. The caregiver reported that, when she asked E.B. where she had learned that 

behavior, E.B. said, “This is what my family does.”
13

After hearing testimony and closing arguments, the court stated there was 

extensive evidence that something sexual happened to G.B., and very well could have 

happened to E.B. It noted that G.B. had been sexually acting out since she was eight 

years old, and now E.B. was acting out. The court noted that G.B.’s behavior was 

extremely consistent with a child who had been sexually abused. It observed that she told 

a number of people, in graphic detail, about the sexual abuse by father, and some of it 

was corroborated by I.G. The court stated that it did not believe G.B.’s recantation of the 

sexual abuse allegations “for a second.” It was very disturbed that they heard for the first 

time in court that G.B. was bribed into making the sexual abuse allegations. It then found 

her statements to multiple people that she was molested by father to be true. The court

also believed I.G.’s statements were true. Therefore, as to G.B., the court found true the 

allegations that father sexually abused her, she suffered severe emotional damage as a 

result of the abuse, and he sexually abused her half sibling, I.G., and found that G.B.

came within section 300, subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (j).

6 As to E.B., the court found 

that father sexually abused her sibling and half sibling, and she came within subdivisions 

(b), (d), and (j). It additionally found that, considering father was denying the abuse ever 

occurred nine months into the dependency case, even with the services he was 

participating in, it was not in the children’s best interests for him to receive reunification 

services. The court then declared the children dependents of the court, removed them 

6

 The court also found true some allegations against mother.
14

from the parents’ custody, ordered reunification services for mother, and bypassed 

services for father under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6).

DISCUSSION

I. There Was Substantial Evidence to Support the Court’s Jurisdictional Findings

Father argues there was insufficient evidence to support the findings that he

sexually abused G.B. or I.G.; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the 

jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). He specifically 

claims it was inherently improbable that he sexually abused G.B. or I.G. He further 

contends that, as a result, the court erred in bypassing his services under section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(6). We conclude there was substantial evidence to support the finding that 

father sexually abused G.B. and I.G. and to sustain the jurisdictional findings.7 

Consequently, we also conclude the court properly bypassed his services.

A. Standard of Review

“The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the 

same rules that apply to all appeals. If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence 

to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. [Citation.] We do 

7

 We acknowledge respondent’s initial contention that father’s challenge appears 

“to conflate” the sexual abuse allegation under section 300, subdivision (d) (severe 

abuse) with the allegations under subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (c) (serious 

emotional damage), and (j) (abuse of sibling). Respondent argues father’s claim is not 

justiciable since there are several unchallenged findings that support the court’s 

jurisdiction over the children. However, the allegation that father sexually abused G.B. 

and I.G. is at the crux of the jurisdictional findings the court made under the various 

subdivisions. Thus, in effect, father is challenging all of the jurisdictional findings on the 

basis of the insufficiency of the evidence of sexual abuse. 
15

not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or 

evaluate the weight of the evidence. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support 

of the findings, view the record most favorably to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm 

the order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. [Citations.] The 

appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial 

evidence. [Citation.]” (In re Christopher L. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1334

(Christopher L.)

B. The Evidence Was Sufficient

There was more than sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that father 

sexually abused G.B. and I.G. The evidence shows the social worker first interviewed 

G.B. on February 13, 2020, and she said father began touching her inappropriately when 

she was five or six years old. She also said that when she was eight years old, he put his 

penis inside her vagina. She said he did that on at least two occasions and threatened to 

hurt her if she told anyone. On March 3, 2020, G.B. told the social worker that father 

touched her breasts, licked her body, and licked her vagina. The social worker observed 

that this was the same abuse reported by I.G. in 2014, and that G.B. and I.G. had not had 

any contact in many years. 

Furthermore, the record shows that, on March 27, 2020, G.B. continued to allege

that father had sexually abused her. She specifically recalled that father groped her when 

she was five years old, and he put his penis in the tip of her vagina on different occasions. 

G.B. further recalled a time in third grade, when father told her to take off her clothes,
16

and he ejaculated in her face. When she was 10 years old, he came into her room, took 

his penis out, and told her to suck it.

Additionally, G.B. disclosed to a forensic interviewer that she was sexually abused 

by father, beginning at age five. She specifically recalled an instance of fondling when 

she was five years old, an instance when father penetrated his penis in her vagina when 

she was nine years old, and an instance when he forced her to orally copulate him when 

she was 11 years old.

The evidence also contained a police report from February 13, 2020, showing that 

G.B. reported father first sexually abused her when she was approximately five years old. 

She reported an instance when he fondled her after she got out of the shower, and an 

instance when she was sleeping in her bed and woke up to him touching her vagina and 

then he penetrated her with his fingers. G.B. also reported, in great detail, instances when 

father put his penis inside her vagina and orally copulated her and I.G.

Furthermore, the evidence showed that G.B. suffered serious emotional damage 

and consequently acted out. She had suicidal ideations, threatened to kill herself if she 

had to return home to father, used methamphetamine and alcohol, was constantly AWOL 

from her placements, and was promiscuous. G.B. was diagnosed with Major Depressive 

Disorder without Psychotic Features, Bulimia Nervosa, Generalized Anxiety, substance 

use disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Moreover, the social worker testified at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing that

G.B. was hypersexualized. She testified that G.B. was watching pornography at age 

eight, and that it was very uncommon for a child that age to be interested in sexual 
17

conduct. The social worker further observed that G.B.’s statements had been very 

consistent with the various people who interviewed her, including police officers, 

detention workers, the forensic interviewer, and the social worker herself. She testified 

that it was very typical for a child who had been sexually abused to have high risk 

behavior like G.B.’s and to recant her statements. To the extent there were discrepancies 

in G.B.’s stories, the social worker testified that there would be “blockage of memory”

and “everything [would] be convoluted,” because of the trauma she had suffered.

There was also evidence that father sexually abused I.G. I.G. reported that he 

touched her, kissed her, and licked her private parts. A police officer informed the social 

worker that I.G reported father raped her when she was eight or nine years old, and that 

the parents touched her breasts and vagina. Moreover, G.B. disclosed an incident when 

she and I.G. were together, and father took off their clothing and licked their vaginas, 

while mother and maternal stepgrandmother were talking in the front yard.

Father claims this court should reverse the finding that he sexually abused G.B. 

and I.G. because it was inherently improbable that he abused them, and the falsity of their 

statements was apparent on the record. He cites Evje v. City Title Ins. Co. (1953) 120 

Cal.App.2d 488, which states: “ ‘Although an appellate court will not uphold a judgment 

or verdict based upon evidence inherently improbable, testimony which merely discloses 

unusual circumstances does not come within that category [citation]. To warrant the 

rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, 

there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be 

apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.’ ” (Id. at p. 492.) However, we 
18

note the Evje court also held, “ ‘Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to 

justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive 

province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or 

falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.’ ” (Ibid.) The court also

observed that for an appellate court to reject statements that a trial court believed, “it is 

required that the testimony be ‘wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds’ [citation]; 

‘unbelievable per se’ [citation] such that ‘no reasonable person could believe the 

testimony’ [citation].” (Ibid.) We further note that “[w]hile an appellate court can 

overturn a judgment when it concludes the evidence supporting it was ‘inherently 

improbable,’ such a finding is so rare as to be almost nonexistent.” (People v. Ennis

(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 728, italics added.)

Here, the trial court believed that father sexually abused G.B. and I.G., and there 

was nothing inherently improbable about their statements of abuse, as father claims.

G.B. was generally consistent in her statements about the abuse to various people 

throughout the dependency. The fact that she recanted her statements and was 

inconsistent as to some aspects of her testimony was very typical of a child who had been 

sexually abused. Such inconsistencies and discrepancies were for the trial court to 

consider in light of all of the evidence and determine which statements it believed to be 

true. Moreover, what was more likely to be improbable was the story G.B. told for the 

first time at the hearing that the maternal grandmother promised her an iPhone and a 

beach house if she made the sexual allegations against father. Father points out the social 

worker testified that the referral alleging he and mother sexually abused I.G. in 2014 was 
19

investigated by CFS and deemed inconclusive. However, the social worker also testified 

that I.G.’s statements were important “[b]ecause years later another child was disclosing 

the same issue.” As the social worker observed, I.G. alleged that father licked her body 

and vagina, and so did G.B. The similarities in their allegations added to the credibility 

of the statements.

In sum, there was overwhelming evidence that father sexually abused G.B., as 

well as I.G., and that G.B. suffered serious emotional harm from the abuse and acted out. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, as we 

must, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court’s jurisdiction over 

the children. (Christopher L., supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333.)

C. The Court Properly Bypassed Father’s Services

Father simply claims that, since the evidence of the sexual abuse allegations 

against him were “so contradicted and unsupported,” the court erred in applying the 

bypass provision under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6). Under section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(6), the court may deny reunification services to a parent when “the child 

has been adjudicated a dependent pursuant to any subdivision of Section 300 as a result 

of severe sexual abuse . . . to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent . . . and the 

court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification 

services with the offending parent.” In light of our conclusion that the evidence was

sufficient to support the court’s finding of sexual abuse, we reject father’s claim. 

Furthermore, the court found it was not in the children’s best interests to offer father

reunification services, since he persisted in denying the abuse ever happened, and we 
20

note that he does not dispute that finding. We conclude the court properly bypassed 

father’s services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6).

DISPOSITION

The court’s orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P.J.

MILLER

J.