Opinion
E074616
07-30-2020
In re A.Z. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.Z. et al., Appellants; G.L. et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent G.L. Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent M.Z.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. J282346 & J282347 & J282348) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Reversed. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent G.L. Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent M.Z.
G.L. (Mother) and M.Z. (Father; collectively, Parents) are the parents of A.Z. (a boy, born in 2013), J.Z. (a boy, born in 2009), and G.Z. (a girl, born in 2006; collectively, the children). In this case, the children challenge the juvenile court's order dismissing the allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), and the court's order granting Father reunification services under section 361.5. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) agrees with the children and states that "the trial court's conclusion that the father's conduct was merely 'inappropriate' and did not rise to the level of sexual abuse must be reversed." Parents have each filed briefs that we affirm the juvenile court's order dismissing the section 300, subdivision (d) allegations. For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse the juvenile court's order dismissing the allegations under section 300, subdivision (d).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. FATHER'S ARREST ON JUNE 12, 2019
On June 12, 2019, the children's maternal aunt contacted the Montclair Police Department. The aunt reported that her daughter (Cousin), currently age 24, told the aunt that in 2012, when Cousin was 17 years old, Father had raped Cousin. The police arrived at the home and began an investigation. Cousin's family and Father's family lived together in Montclair in 2012. Cousin did not resist Father because she was afraid. Father threatened to tell the family and told Cousin that the family would think poorly of Cousin and that Cousin would have a bad reputation if she did not continue to have intercourse with him and orally copulate him. These acts continued for several years.
Cousin told the officer that she decided to come forward to protect G.Z. because earlier in the evening of June 12, 2019, Cousin overheard G.Z. stating that Father had said something sexual to G.Z.
G.Z. told the officer that she had walked into Parents' bedroom and Father was in bed. Father told G.Z., "I am going to beat that pussy up." When G.Z. got upset, Father told G.Z. that he thought G.Z. was Mother, and not to tell Mother. G.Z. stated that she did not believe it was a mistake because Father had said other inappropriate things to her. One time, Father had pushed G.Z. down on the bed, exposed his penis, and then placed his penis on her genital area over her clothing.
Father was arrested. Father told the police that he believed he was speaking to Mother, not G.Z. He claimed that he had not made any sexually explicit statements to G.Z. However, because Father sings rap songs, he thought that G.Z. may have heard the lyrics. Father also stated that he had explained to G.Z. the importance of being honest by telling her, " 'If I put my penis in your hand, would that be right or wrong?' " Father admitted to a sexual relationship with Cousin but claimed it was consensual and that it began when she was 19 years old.
Father was booked for violations of Penal Code sections 288, subdivision (b)(1); 288, subdivision (a)(1)(A); and 261.5, subdivision (c).
B. REFERRAL AND INVESTIGATION
On June 13, 2019, the children came to CFS's attention when it received a referral with allegations of sexual abuse to G.Z. by Father. "It was reported that [G.Z.] walked into the father's room and he made inappropriate sexual comments towards [G.Z.]." G.Z. disclosed to the Montclair Police Department that a year prior to the referral Father had pushed G.Z. on the bed, exposed his penis to G.Z., and placed his penis on her vagina over her clothes.
The next day, a social worker contacted Mother. She reported that G.Z. disclosed the same incident to her. Moreover, G.Z. disclosed an occurrence where Father told G.Z. to come "over here so we can have sex." Mother clarified that G.Z. had never mentioned sexual abuse before when asked about it. G.Z. stated that she was scared and did not want to make any disclosures because she was afraid of upsetting Mother. G.Z. also told the social worker that Father asked G.Z. not to tell Mother. Additionally, G.Z. reported being uncomfortable in the home. Mother requested a maternal aunt to care for the children while Father was moving out of the home.
On June 17, 2019, the social worker made an unannounced visit to the home and interviewed G.Z. in private. G.Z. described a few instances where Father talked "sexual" to her. On one occasion, Father compared G.Z.'s hair to pubic hair and made comments such as " 'I'm gonna beat that vagina up.' " On another occasion, in response to G.Z. getting in trouble and refusing to talk to Father about it, he asked G.Z., " 'So if I put my penis in your hand you wouldn't say anything?' " On a third occasion, G.Z. was watching television in the bedroom; Father laid G.Z. on the bed, got on top of her and asked, "How do you feel?" G.Z. denied reporting the incidents to Mother because she did not want to break up her family. During the interview, G.Z. cried saying she missed Father.
When the social worker asked G.Z. about the incident that led to the investigation, G.Z. appeared confused. She explained that Father had mistaken her for her mother when he suggested G.Z. join him in bed in Parents' bedroom.
The social worker interviewed Mother. Mother repeated the incident that she heard from G.Z. describing the instance where G.Z. walked into Parents' bedroom and Father asked her to go to him so they " 'can have sex.' " G.Z. told Mother that Father instructed her not to tell Mother. However, when Mother confronted Father about the incident, Father insisted that he had mistaken G.Z. for Mother. Therefore, he responded to G.Z., " 'I thought you were mom.' "
Mother stated that she wanted to ensure that the children did not have contact with Father. She sent the children to the maternal grandmother's home on a temporary basis. Mother would not allow Father back into the home.
On June 28, 2019, CFS received another referral, which reported that Father had been "bailed out" by paternal family and had returned home. When he returned, Father threw G.Z. on the bed, causing her to leave the bed crying. Father told G.Z. that if he goes to jail, he could get hurt and die, and she would be responsible for separating the family. The second referral also reported that Father raped Cousin when she was 17 years old. The referral further alleged physical abuse by Father and general neglect by Mother.
On July 2, 2019, the social worker interviewed Mother again. Mother denied that Father had returned to the home. She also stated that she did not believe that Father having sex with Cousin was sexual abuse because their relationship was "consensual." G.Z. denied she had seen her father. J.Z. stated he spoke with Father on the telephone.
C. POLICE REPORT
According to the Montclair Police Department report, Father raped Cousin by force when she was 17 years old. Thereafter, sexual intercourse between Father and Cousin occurred "pretty regularly, approximately two or three times a week, for that entire year she was 17 years old." Cousin reported that Father sometimes told her to orally copulate him instead of intercourse. When Cousin did not want to participate, Father threatened to expose the relationship to the family and that Cousin would get a bad reputation. Cousin did not tell anyone about the relationship because she did not want to cause problems with the family and get a bad reputation.
On June 12, 2019, the evening Cousin decided to disclose the relationship, she overhead G.Z. claiming that Father "had said something sexual and inappropriate" to her. The event triggered Cousin's report.
D. FORENSIC INTERVIEW
On August 15, 2019, G.Z. completed a forensic interview at the Children's Assessment Center. G.Z. was tearful during the interview and stated that she missed Father. She minimized Father's inappropriate comments. G.Z. stated that when she walked into Parents' bedroom, Father could not see her so he thought G.Z. was Mother when he made the sexual comments. He did not mean what he said.
According to G.Z., Father never warned her not to tell Mother about the comments he had made. G.Z. felt "uncomfortable" and asked Mother if she could go to her grandmother's home while Mother stayed home to talk to Father. G.Z. was scared to make the disclosure to her Mother because "my dad and mom, they're just going to break up, and I don't want that to happen because I really love my family and I was just scared, so I kept it to myself."
G.Z. did admit that Father had made comments about her pubic hair. He also told her to stop being a "pussy." G.Z. denied that anyone had touched her inappropriately.
E. EVENTS LEADING TO THE DETENTION
On August 26, 2019, Mother denied that she had plans to seek full custody of the children or visitation at family law court, "because she didn't need to." Mother did not believe that Father had been inappropriate with G.Z. She also declined to participate in preventive services offered by CFS.
On September 3, 2019, Ontario Police Department conducted a welfare check on the home. They found Father taking a shower in the home. The children and Mother were not home.
On September 4, 2019, CFS obtained a protective custody warrant and served it on Parents. Mother requested that the children be placed with maternal relatives.
Additional investigative efforts revealed that the family had a prior dependency case from June 19, 2016, until September 6, 2017, for physical abuse. At that time, G.Z. and J.Z. remained with Mother under family maintenance while reunification services were offered to Father. Parents reunified with the children and the case was dismissed on September 7, 2017.
F. DETENTION
On September 6, 2019, CFS filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the children. G.Z.'s petition was filed under subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (d) (sexual abuse). The petitions of J.Z. and A.Z. were filed under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of a sibling).
At the detention hearing on September 9, 2019, Mother objected to the detention arguing that she was able to maintain the children safely in her care with a no-contact order against Father. Father joined in the objection. The children's counsel requested a detriment finding regarding Father's visits pending jurisdiction and disposition. The juvenile court granted the request finding that visits with Father were not in the children's best interests with the intent to revisit the issue at the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court temporarily detained the children from Parents' custody. The children were placed with relatives.
G. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition report dated October 2, 2019, recommended sustaining the allegations and offering reunification services to Parents. The children's counsel opposed family reunification services for father.
According to the report, G.Z. denied that anyone had touched her inappropriately. She minimized the previously-reported incident when Father called her over to have sex. She explained it away that Father mistook her for Mother. G.Z. confirmed that father did make her feel uncomfortable at times because of the things he had said to her.
In the social worker's assessment, the prognosis for reunification was guarded because Mother appeared to minimize the risk Father posed to the children. The social worker hypothesized that Mother was a contributing factor in G.Z.'s "changing her disclosure about [the] inappropriate sexual conduct by father." The report also noted that G.Z. recanted her statements regarding Father exposing his penis to her and pushing her on the bed.
CFS was concerned about Mother's ability to protect the children and her willingness to safeguard the children against Father's inappropriate conduct. Mother relied on Father for financial support and needed "him to help her with the bills." CFS was concerned that Mother permitted Father back into the home even after the disclosure made by G.Z. and Cousin. Mother did not perceive Father as a danger to the children. The social worker, however, did note that the children had a close bond with Mother and she wanted to reunify with them.
Father did not participate in the interview for the preparation of the jurisdiction and disposition report.
At the October 2, 2019, hearing, Father's counsel provided the juvenile court with the minute order from the criminal court stating that criminal charges against Father would not be pursued. At the same hearing, the children's counsel advised the court and parties the following: "The issue I wanted to raise on behalf of the minors was bypass with respect to Father under (b)(3)." The court set the matter contested.
By November 12, 2019, Mother had enrolled in individual counseling and parenting. Father, after participating in an interview with the social worker, also enrolled in individual counseling and parenting. CFS's recommendation remained unchanged with the offer of reunification to Parents. The children's counsel intended to pursue a bypass to Father's reunification services.
As of January 14, 2020, CFS continued to recommend reunification services for Parents. Father had almost completed the number of authorized sessions with the individual therapist. The report, however, indicated that he had not made progress in counseling and his therapist intended to seek additional counseling sessions. In his meetings with the social worker, Father continued to insist that everything in the report was false. The social worker believed that additional services were counterproductive as Father was not honest and frustrated. Father walked out of the interview with the social worker.
At the January 28, 2020, contested jurisdictional hearing, CFS's counsel argued to find the modified allegations true. G.Z.'s section 300, subdivision (d), allegations remained unchanged. CFS's counsel reminded the court: "For the court to sustain the [section 300, subdivision] (d) allegation, the Court only needs to find that there's a substantial risk of sexual abuse. [¶] And given the—and I would call it the grooming behavior that has been going on for quite some time in this home. I believe there's more than sufficient evidence for the Court to sustain that allegation." The children's counsel joined CFS's counsel's argument. Father's counsel believed that the section 300, subdivision (d) and (j) allegations were not true because G.Z. recanted in her interview with CAC. Mother's counsel argued G.Z. did not tell Mother about Father's statements and Mother did not know anything about any prior statements until the incident in the bedroom. Her counsel requested that the allegations be found not true.
After hearing from counsel, the juvenile court found that "the Department has satisfied its burden as to the [section 300] (b) allegation, but not as to a [section 300] (d) allegation." The court specifically noted that G.Z. recanted her story at the CAC interview: "The court notes, having said all that, that at the CAC there were expert questioners who did talk to [G.Z.], who did ask, as has been pointed out, very frank questions . . . whether she had been inappropriately touched, whether she had been asked to touch anyone else inappropriately. And she responded that she had not been asked, and she had not been touched or been shown." As such, the court dismissed the section 300, subdivision (d), allegations on G.Z.'s petition and found that G.Z. came within subdivision (b). By extension, the court dismissed the section 300, subdivision (j), allegations on J.Z.'s and A.Z.'s petitions.
At the contested disposition, the children's counsel argued that Father's reunification services be bypassed under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3). The court found that it was in the best interest of the children to offer Father services. The court reasoned: "[T]o the Court's mind from the evidence that the Court has reviewed with respect to the reports and the information as to all of the children, there is genuine bond, a genuine love."
The court set a six-month review hearing for July 28, 2020.
On January 30, 2020, the children filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of the section 300, subdivision (d), allegations and the grant of reunification services to Father.
DISCUSSION
A. CFS MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO THE SUBDIVISION (D) ALLEGATIONS
On appeal, the children contend that the trial court erred in finding that CFS had not met its burden of proof that G.Z. was subjected to the father's inappropriate sexual behavior, which also put J.Z. and A.Z. at risk of abuse. CFS agrees with the children. Parents first argue that the issues raised by the children are not justiciable. Moreover, even if they are, Parents argue that the juvenile court properly found that CFS failed to meet its burden.
1. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE CHILDREN ARE JUSTICIABLE
Father contends that the issues presented by the children are not justiciable because any order by this court would have no practical effect on the pending dependency proceedings. Mother joined in the arguments presented by Father. We disagree with Parents.
Appellate courts may exercise their discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdiction finding. (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917.)
Moreover, reversing the juvenile court's order regarding the section 300, subdivision (d), allegations will impact the related disposition, including Father's case plan. In this case, the juvenile court only found the section 300, subdivision (b), allegations to be true. Therefore, it ordered Father's case plan to include sexual abuse counseling. However, if a section 300, subdivision (d), allegation is found to be true, Father's case plan would most likely require a more intensive program—such as a 52-week sexual abuse perpetrator program. (See, In re R.C. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 741, 752-753), instead of sexual abuse counseling.
Thus, we find that the issues on this appeal are justiciable.
2. THE JUVENILE COURT'S FINDING MUST BE REVERSED
Because CFS had the burden of proof below, the question on appeal is whether "the evidence compels a finding in favor of" a section 300, subdivision (d), finding "as a matter of law." (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528.) The question is whether the evidence that G.Z. came within section 300, subdivision (d) was "(1) 'uncontradicted and unimpeached' and (2) 'of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.' " (I.W., at p. 1528.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), provides that a child may be adjudged a dependent of the court when, among other instances, the "child has been sexually abused, or there is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused, as defined in Section 11165.1 of the Penal Code, by his or her parent or guardian or a member of his or her household." (Italics added.) Penal Code section 11165.1 enumerates several criminal statutes and conduct that fall within the meaning of sexual abuse of a child to include any act that violates Penal Code section 288 (lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14) or Penal Code section 647.6 (annoying or molesting a child).
First, we address whether Father's actions fell within Penal Code section 647.6, child molestation. Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides that "Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished. . . ." " 'Annoy and molest' are synonymous and mean to disturb or irritate, especially by continued or repeated acts; to vex, to trouble; to irk; or to offend." (People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1749; see also In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 111, 135.) This does not require touching but does require conduct that "a ' "normal person would unhesitatingly be irritated by" ' " and conduct that is ' "motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest" ' in the victim." (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 289.)
In In re D.G. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1562, the court held that a father offering a minor money in exchange for oral sex "was conduct that evidenced his abnormal sexual motivation and would irritate a normal child and invade her privacy and security," and therefore, supported the section 300, subdivision (d) finding. (D.G., at pp. 1571-1572.)
In this case, Father told G.Z. that he was going to "beat that pussy up," which upset G.Z. Father contended that he used the word "eat" and not "beat" because he thought he was speaking to Mother, not G.Z. During an interview with CFS, G.Z. confirmed this statement made by Father. During the CAC forensic interview, G.Z. was tearful and recanted her story. However, she did state that what Father had said made her uncomfortable and nervous. She assumed the worst. Prior to the CDC interview, G.Z. told a police officer that she believed that Father spoke to her, and not Mother, because of other sexual remarks Father had made to G.Z. After G.Z. finally told Mother, she wanted to leave the family home and go to her grandmother's home. She was crying and emotional.
Moreover, Father admitted that he had posed the question, "If I put my penis in your hand, would that be wrong or right" to G.Z. In addition, G.Z. admitted that Father made comments about her pubic hair. G.Z. stated that the way Father talked to her made her nervous and wanted him to change the way he spoke to her. This unrefuted evidence was all that was sufficient to establish that G.Z. came within section 300, subdivision (d).
In addition to a finding that Father's actions fell within Penal Code section 647.6, which supported the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), allegation, Father's actions also fell within Penal Code section 288 (lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14). As noted above, Penal Code section 11165.1 enumerates several criminal statutes and conduct that fall within the meaning of sexual abuse of a child to include any act that violates Penal Code section 288 (lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14) or Penal Code section 647.6 (annoying or molesting a child).
Conduct described as "sexual assault" includes, among others, the "intentional touching of the genitals or intimate parts, including the breasts, genital area, groin, inner thighs, and buttocks, or the clothing covering them, of a child, or of the perpetrator by a child, for purposes of sexual arousal or gratification, except that it does not include acts which may reasonably be construed to be normal caretaker responsibilities; interactions with, or demonstrations of affection for, the child; or acts performed for a valid medical purpose." (Pen. Code, § 11165.1, subd. (b)(4).)
Whether Father acted with sexual intent of arousal or sexual gratification "must be inferred from all the circumstances." (In re R.C., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 750, citing People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 444.) In R.C., a 32-year-old stepfather, who was a member of the child's household, declared that he was in love with the 12-year-old child and engaged in French kissing the child. (Id. at p. 745.) When the child was interviewed by the police, she disclosed that she was in a relationship with her stepfather and they kissed. (Ibid.) The Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition with subdivision (d), allegations. (R.C., at p. 746.) By the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the child recanted much of what she had told the police: "All I can tell you is that everything is a lie." (Ibid.) Nonetheless, the Department argued that the stepfather's conduct subjected the child to lewd and lascivious acts, providing the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), allegations. (R.C., at p. 747.) The parents' counsel argued that the stepfather neither intimately touched the child as described under Penal Code section 11165.1, nor demonstrated that the acts of French kissing performed for arousal of sexual gratification. (Id. at pp. 747-748.) The juvenile court disagreed with the Department and modified the reference to sexual assault with "inappropriate sexual conduct." Therefore, the court converted the allegation into a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), count and dismissed the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), count. (R.C., at p. 748.) On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court finding and held that French kissing between an adult and a 12-year-old child who described themselves as "in love" was inherently sexual. (Id. at 752-753.) The appellate court stated: "The manner of the touching itself—the intentional French kissing of a child under 14 by an adult—and the absence of any conceivable innocent explanation are dispositive." (Id. at p. 750.)
Here, the evidence showed that G.Z. consistently described—to the social worker and the investigating police officer—an occurrence where Father had pushed her on the bed, exposed his penis, and then laid the penis on her covered genital area. Father intentionally touched G.Z.'s genital area with his genitals over her clothing. Just like in R.C., there is no conceivable innocent explanation for Father's actions. In addition to these acts, G.Z. reported that Father had compared her hair to public hair. Father allegedly also mistook G.Z. for Mother and invited G.Z. to come have sex with Father. G.Z. did not believe Father mistook her for Mother because Father "had made similar statements to her in the past."
In addition, Father admitted to having a sexual relationship with Cousin because she "wanted it." Cousin was only 17 years old at the time. Moreover, Father threatened Cousin that he would expose the relationship to the family and she would have a bad reputation, when Cousin did not want to participate. Similarly, Father told G.Z. that she would be responsible for breaking up the family if he were sent to jail, that he would get hurt in jail, and die because of G.Z.'s disclosures.
Although there was no reasonable, innocent explanation for Father's acts in exposing his penis to G.Z. and laying it on her genital area, the trial court in this case concluded that "this was a very thin line, and the father needs to understand that. The comments that were noted were inappropriate to be made any young child, much less a child of [G.Z.'s] sensibility and age." The court then went on to give a lot of weight to G.Z.'s recantation. The court stated: "The court notes, having said all that, that at the CAC there were expert questioners who did talk to [G.Z.], who did ask, as has been pointed out, very frank questions . . . whether she had been inappropriately touched, whether she had been asked to touch anyone else inappropriately. And she responded that she had not been asked, and she had not been touched or been shown." However, the fact that the child recanted during the CAC interview is not surprising and not uncommon for a victim of sexual abuse, just as the child recanted must of her story in R.C. (See People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947 [expert's testimony that victims commonly and falsely recant their stories of abuse is admissible to dispel common misconceptions regarding behavior of abused victims].) Here, G.Z. was scared to tell Mother about Father's behavior because "my mom and dad, they're just going to break up, and I don't want that to happen because I really love my family and I was just scared, so I kept it to myself." The social worker wondered if G.Z.'s recantation was a result of Mother's influence. Notwithstanding G.Z.'s recantation, she clearly felt uncomfortable with Father in the home and requested to be placed temporarily with the maternal grandmother.
In conclusion, after reviewing all the evidence in the record regarding how Father interacted with and spoke with G.Z., it is evident that G.Z. was sexually abused within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (d). Moreover, although there is no evidence that Father also groomed or sexually abused J.Z. or A.Z., they too remain at a substantial risk of abuse. Therefore, the section 300, subdivision (j), counts on the siblings' petitions must be found true.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order dismissing the allegations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (d), and (j), is reversed. Moreover, because the juvenile court's order that father receive reunification services relied on the dismissal of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d), and (j), allegations, the juvenile court is ordered to vacate the reunification services offered to Father and reevaluate Father's services in accordance with this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. FIELDS
J.