Court Opinion

ID: 9929161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:02:19.87897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:17:43.945873
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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                               B328340
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
___________________________________                              (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                               Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND                                       19CCJP02167C-E)
FAMILY SERVICES,

        Plaintiff and Respondent,

        v.

C.C.,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     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.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               2
       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.

                                 3
       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

                                4
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 pre-
existing 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.

                                5
       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.

                                6
      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.

                                 7
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.”

                                 8
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.

                                 9
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

                                10
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

                                  11
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.)

                                 12
       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

                                 13
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

                                14
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.

                                15