Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK81210, Donna Levin, Referee.
California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Anne E. Fragrasso; Anne E. Fragrasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Peter Ferrera, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOSK, J.
INTRODUCTION
The juvenile court sustained the jurisdictional allegation that J.B., father, placed his children, four-year-old Aden B. and three-year-old Ashlee B., at risk of harm by sexually molesting their stepsister (father’s step-daughter) seven-year-old Alexis J. At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered Aden and Ashlee removed from father’s custody and ordered father to have monitored visits with his children, to complete a parenting class, and to submit to four random drug tests. On appeal, father contends that the juvenile court’s finding that he molested Alexis thereby placing Aden and Ashlee at risk is not supported by substantial evidence, that the juvenile court’s removal order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that the juvenile court’s dispositional orders are not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In addition to father, Aden, Ashlee, and Alexis, the family consists of S.J., mother; 13-year-old Alexander C.; nine-year-old Andrew J.; and five-year-old Alana J. On February 9, 2010, a social worker went to the family’s home after the California Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received an Emergency Response referral that alleged that mother was neglecting the children. While interviewing Alexis, the social worker explained “good touch” and “bad touch” and asked Alexis if any adult had touched her in any of her private areas. Alexis responded that father had touched her “butt” while she was alone in the shower. Alexis said that father touched her butt with soap. When father continued to touch Alexis when the soap was gone, Alexis said, “Dad the soap is gone.” Asked how father’s touching her made her feel, Alexis responded, “It makes me feel not good.”
The social worker asked Alexis if father had touched her vagina. Alexis responded that father touched her vagina in the shower. Father had soap on his hand and it hurt. The social worker asked Alexis if father had put anything in her vagina. Alexis said that father put his finger in her vagina and that it hurt.
The social worker asked Alexis if mother was home when father touched her. Alexis responded that father only touched her when mother was at work. Alexis stated that father had touched her a total of three times, the most recent incident occurring two weeks prior. Alexis stated that father had touched her twice in the home where they presently lived, and once when her family lived with her grandfather. Alexis had difficulty remembering what occurred the first two times that father touched her, but remembered that she was either in the bath or the shower and that father touched her butt and put his finger in her vagina.
The social worker asked Alexis if father said anything to her when he was touching her. Alexis responded that father told her, “Don’t tell anyone or else the police will come and I will get shot.” Alexis stated that she had not told her mother that father had touched her because she was concerned that mother might hurt father and would call the police and father would be shot. The social worker asked Alexis how “this” made her feel. Alexis responded, “It makes me feel so sad. It makes me want to run away.”
The social worker spoke with mother about Alexis’s statements. Mother said, “[T]his is absolutely not true.” Mother stated that father did not give the children baths. Mother said that Alexis had a history of lying. The social worker asked mother why Alexis would tell such a lie. Mother responded that “Alexis must think there is something in it for her.” Mother stated, however, that at that moment she did not care if Alexis was lying. Mother’s ultimate concern was for her children’s safety and she was “afraid if it’s true.”
The Department social worker contacted the Santa Clarita Sheriff’s Department. Two sheriff’s deputies interviewed Alexis. According to their report, Alexis told the deputies that she was taking a shower two weeks prior when father entered the bathroom and pulled open the shower curtain. Father said that he was going to help Alexis take a shower. According to Alexis, father was fully dressed and standing outside the bathtub. Alexis was facing away from father when father lathered his hands with soap and rubbed her buttocks. Alexis told the deputies that father fondled the outside of her vagina with his hand and then inserted his finger and penetrated her vagina. Alexis told father to stop because the soap on father’s hands was burning her vagina and the penetration felt uncomfortable. Father left the bathroom without further incident.
The deputies asked Alexis if there had been other occasions when father touched her. Alexis reported that father touched her on two prior occasions. According to Alexis, about three months prior father entered the bathroom when she was taking a bath and fondled the outside of her vagina with his hand. Alexis was unable to remember anything more about the incident. On another occasion, when Alexis was five years old and living in Riverside, father touched her vagina. Alexis could not remember any details.
The deputies also interviewed mother and father. Mother told the deputies that father was rarely home alone with the children and did not assist them in bathing. Mother stated that she did not believe that father sexually abused Alexis and that Alexis made up stories that were not true. The deputies asked father if he had ever touched Alexis in any way whether in or out of the shower. Father stated that he did not help Alexis with her baths or in dressing, and did not know why Alexis would say he touched her. Father stated that he kept his distance from the children to avoid any problems. The deputies arrested father for violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a)—committing a lewd act with a child under age 14.
On February 11, 2010, the Department’s social worker contacted Santa Clarita Police Department Detective Richard Simmons, the officer assigned to investigate the allegation that father had molested Alexis. Detective Simmons informed the social worker that father had been released from jail on February 10, 2010, due to insufficient evidence. Detective Simmons explained that Alexis had told him that father touched her private parts, but that there were consistencies and inconsistencies in her story. Detective Simmons stated that he was going to continue his investigation.
The Department’s February 16, 2010, Detention Report listed a prior sexual abuse referral concerning Alexis. In November 2007, the Department received a referral that alleged that father was sexually abusing Alexis. The reporting party alleged that Alexis said something about “licking pussy.” Alexis was reported also to have said, “My dad said it’s a secret and I’m not supposed to tell anyone.” The Department social worker closed the allegation as unfounded because Alexis denied having made the statements.
On February 16, 2010, the Department filed a petition that alleged, in relevant part, that Aden and Ashlee came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j) because father repeatedly sexually abused Alexis. The petition alleged that father fondled and digitally penetrated Alexis’s vagina, fondled her buttocks, and watched her take a bath and shower. The petition further alleged that father told Alexis not to disclose the sexual abuse. As for mother, the petition alleged that she failed to take action to protect Alexis when she knew, or reasonably should have known, of father’s sexual abuse. The petition further alleged that father’s sexual abuse of Alexis and mother’s failure to protect Alexis placed Alexis and her siblings, including Aden and Ashlee, at risk of physical and emotional harm, damage, sexual abuse, and failure to protect. At detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case and detained Aden and Ashlee from father. The juvenile court released Aden and Ashlee to mother. The juvenile court permitted father weekly two-hour monitored visits with Aden and Ashlee.
All statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
The Department’s March 15, 2010, Jurisdiction/Disposition Report included statements from Alexis, members of her family, her babysitter, her teacher, and Detective Simmons. Before the Department’s investigator could ask Alexis any questions, Alexis stated, “I did a big lie because the police made me nervous and they were kind of tricking me.” Alexis said the deputies tricked her “by saying weird things that were wrong.” Alexis said she lied about father touching her private parts because the deputies made her nervous.
Alexis said that the truth was that father “was being kind of rough because he is a guy and he was washing me. He’s really rough. He hurted [sic] me because the way he washed me was really hard.” Alexis explained that mother talked to her “and it was really a long talk. The washing part is the truth.” Alexis said that she lied because she was mad at father. Alexis asked the investigator if father could come home and if the investigator would let mother know what Alexis had told the investigator. Alexis said that mother wanted to know what Alexis told the investigator because mother wanted to know if Alexis told a lie or the truth.
The investigator asked Alexander if he knew why father was no longer living with the family. Alexander responded, “Because my sister made a lie.” Asked why he believed his sister had lied, Alexander responded that he was at home all the time watching the children and father was at school all the time. Alexander said that he and mother were responsible for giving his siblings baths or showers. Alexander added that father would “wash the kids on his day off. He makes them wash themselves.” Alexander stated that he had seen father give his sisters a bath or shower, but that the door was open all the time. Alexander said that his sisters “never looked like they were scared or upset when they came out and they never said that he did anything to them.”
Andrew told the investigator that father was not living with the family because Alexis lied. Andrew said that Alexis “always lies.’ Andrew said that his sisters cleaned themselves, but that his brother would help them get out of the shower. On one occasion, father assisted the girls in getting out of the shower. Asked if Alexis ever had told him that father had touched her inappropriately, Andrew responded that she had, but that she was a liar.
Alana told the investigator that father was not living with the family because “Alexis lied about something and they confused her. She told a story.” The investigator asked Alana how she knew Alexis had told a story. Alana responded that she had heard Alexis admit to mother that she had told a story. Alana said that Alexis was confused “because there was a lot of people there. There was a boy police man and the people kept coming here and she wanted them to stop.” Alana reported that mother said that father could come home if Alexis told the truth. Alana did not know what the truth was. The investigator asked Alana if father ever touched her vaginal area. Alana responded, “That’s only when he’s washing me, Alexis, or Alana [sic]. He washes body.”
The investigator asked father if he had ever bathed any of the children. Father said he bathed Aden and Ashlee when they were little, but that he always wore a bathing suit in the shower. Father stated that his belief that the social worker had led Alexis to lie about him. The day before the social worker spoke with Alexis, father had told the social worker that he did not trust social workers. Thereafter, the social worker “started acting weird.” Father told the investigator that he had washed Alexis’s hair, but did not remember “washing her.” On one occasion, he opened the bathroom door to tell Alexis and Alana that they were taking too long in the shower. Father stated that he had washed some of the children from the waist up, but had never touched any of the girls’ vaginal areas.
Father believed that Alexis lied about him because she was mad at him and thought she would get something out of lying. The previous day, Alexis had gotten in trouble at home for stealing some toys from a child in the neighborhood. Father took the toys from Alexis and said that he would keep them until he confirmed with the neighbor child’s parent that Alexis was allowed to have the toys. According to father, when Alexis came out of the room where she had spoken with the social worker, Alexis said, “Yep and I’m going to get my toys.”
Mother told the investigator that Alexis told mother that she was angry with father because he would not let her have some toys. Mother told Alexis that she was concerned that “it” could have happened and that it was mother’s job to protect Alexis. Alexis said that the “person kept asking her questions and gave her enough to make a story.” Mother reported that Alexis was “very remorseful” and did not intend for the lie to be so big. Alexis also told her babysitter, Clara G., and her paternal aunt, Kendra M., that she had lied about father. Alexis told her babysitter that she lied about father touching her private parts. Alexis did not specify to paternal aunt the nature of the lie.
Mother told the investigator that father bathed the smaller children once in a while if mother was attending to other matters. On such occasions, father always kept the bathroom door open because he knew that one of mother’s other children had been molested.
Alexis told her teacher that father had gone to jail because she lied and the police tricked her. Alexis told her teacher that she told the police that father touched her “privates” but father was just washing her hard. Alexis’s teacher said that she had never caught Alexis in a lie in class.
Detective Simmons told the investigator that when he spoke with Alexis, she did not deny that the sexual abuse had happened, but her statement was inconsistent. Father initially told Detective Simmons that he would do anything to prove his innocence and that he would take a polygraph test. When Detective Simmons called father on February 16, 2010, to arrange for father to take the polygraph test, father said he had changed his mind and would not take the test or speak further with Detective Simmons about the matter. Father said that Alexis had told everyone that she had lied.
In its July 15, 2010, Supplemental Report, the Department reported that mother continued to believe that the allegations against father were false. Mother stated that there was no need for the Department to be involved with her family. The report states that father told a social worker that he was in individual counseling, but that his individual counseling did not address sexual abuse. Father felt that if he addressed sexual abuse in his individual counseling, he would be admitting that he molested Alexis.
At the adjudication hearing, Alexis testified that she remembered speaking with the police, but did not remember what she told them. Alexis denied that father touched her while she was taking a shower. Alexis said that father helped her take a shower once, and washed her back and stomach. Alexis told the police that father washed her with soap and that it burned. When Alexis said that it “burned, ” she was referring to her back. Alexis denied that she told the police that father washed her bottom with soap or that he washed her front private parts with soap and that it burned. Alexis denied that she told the police that she asked father to stop washing her bottom because the soap was all gone. When Alexis told the social worker that father washed her too hard, she was referring to father washing her back.
Alexis was asked why she said that father washed her front private parts with soap if it was not true. Alexis responded, “I don’t know.” Asked where she got the idea to say that father had washed her front private parts if it was not true, Alexis responded, “Nowhere.” Alexis was asked where she came up with the idea to tell the police that father touched her when she lived with her grandfather. Alexis responded, “I don’t know.” Alexis then denied telling the police that father had touched her twice in the home where she then lived.
Alexis denied that father had touched her “private.” Alexis testified that she lied about father touching her private parts because she was mad at him for not letting her friends give her any of their toys or clothes. Alexis told paternal aunt and her babysitter that she had lied about father touching her private parts. Alexis testified that she never told her teacher or spoke with her siblings about what she told the police. Alexis felt bad about lying.
Alexis testified that father was not living with her because she told a lie to the social worker and the police about father touching her private parts. Alexis testified that she believed that if she said in court that father just washed her stomach and back then father would be able to come home. Alexis had spoken with mother about going to court. Mother told Alexis to tell the truth in court and did not tell her what to say.
Andrew testified that Alexis told him that father touched her in a “bad way” before the “police and social workers starting coming.” Andrew believed Alexis was lying because she moved her fingers and twitched her eyes when she lied and she was moving her fingers behind her back and moving her eyes when she told him that father had touched her.
Paternal aunt testified that she had a “pretty close” relationship with Alexis, although they had had “issues” from time to time—paternal aunt caught Alexis stealing from her purse on three occasions. Alexis’s relationship with her aunt was such that Alexis would confide in her aunt. When paternal aunt and Alexis were making Valentine’s Day cards, Alexis said that she had lied and felt “really, really bad” about it. Paternal aunt asked Alexis about the lie and Alexis said that she had told several people that father had done something he had not done. Alexis was afraid because she knew she had to tell the truth and did not think she would be believed. Paternal aunt told Alexis that she had to tell the truth, whatever the truth might be. Paternal aunt testified that she had never observed father touch any of the children in an inappropriate manner.
The family babysitter testified that she was “very close” with Alexis. Alexis told the babysitter “everything, ” including her secrets. Alexis was very honest with the babysitter although Alexis sometimes told lies when she had done something wrong. Alexis never told the babysitter that she had been sexually abused. Alexis told the babysitter that there were “problems” and that her father was in trouble because she lied about father touching her “private areas.” Alexis said she told mother the truth and mother told her that mother was proud of her.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). The juvenile court observed that this was a “very difficult case.” The juvenile court stated that Alexis and Andrew had a “difficult time with the truth and lie part of it.” The children’s difficulty led the juvenile court to believe that mother was “helping” Alexis and Andrew. The juvenile court stated that the “stories were so packed” and “sounded like exactly what the mother wanted the court to hear.” The juvenile court observed that Alexis’s story was that she was a liar. The juvenile court stated, however, that it believed that “something” had happened to Alexis. The juvenile court stated that it wanted Alexis to know that it believed her and that she did not have to be branded a liar by her siblings, mother, and father because mother refused to believe Alexis was abused. The juvenile court ordered psychological evaluations for mother, father, Alexander, Andrew, Alexis, and Alana pursuant to Evidence Code section 730. The juvenile court continued the matter for a contested disposition hearing.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared Aden and Ashlee to be dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). The juvenile court removed Aden and Ashlee from father’s custody and placed them with mother. The juvenile court ordered that father was to receive family reunification services, to provide four random drug and alcohol tests, and to attend parenting education classes and individual counseling to address case issues including his sexual abuse of Alexis.
DISCUSSION
I. The Juvenile Court’s Jurisdictional Finding That Father Sexually Abused Alexis Thereby Placing Aden And Ashlee At Risk Of Harm
Father contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that he sexually molested Alexis thereby placing Aden and Ashlee at risk of harm. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Aden and Ashlee came within the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j).
A child will come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) if “[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 the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child....”
A child will come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (d) if “[t]he 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, or the parent or guardian has failed to adequately protect the child from sexual abuse when the parent or guardian knew or reasonably should have known that the child was in danger of sexual abuse.”
A child will come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (j) if “[t]he child’s sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those subdivisions. The court shall consider the circumstances surrounding the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial risk to the child.”
A. Standard of Review
On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction for substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) “The term ‘substantial evidence’ means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that apply to other appeals.” (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) An appellate court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. (Ibid.; In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564 [issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact].) Instead, the reviewing court draws all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court’s findings, considers the record most favorably to the juvenile court’s order, and affirms the order if it is supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 947.)
B. Background
The juvenile court’s determination of jurisdiction turned on its evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses’ out-of-court statements and in-court testimony. Alexis alleged sexual abuse by father and then recanted that allegation. Father contends that the juvenile court’s finding of sexual abuse is not supported by substantial evidence because Alexis recanted her allegation of abuse and persons close to Alexis said she sometimes lied.
1. Alexis’s allegations of abuse
According to the social worker, Alexis stated that father had touched her “butt” with soap while she was in the shower. Alexis stated that after the soap was washed away father continued to touch her. Alexis said that father’s touching her made her feel “not good.” Alexis also told the social worker that father had touched her vagina in the shower. Again, father had soap on his hand. Alexis said that father put his finger in her vagina and that it hurt.
Alexis told the social worker that father had touched her on three occasions and only when mother was at work. According to Alexis, father touched her twice in the family’s current home, and once when her family lived with her grandfather. Alexis did not remember all of the details of the first two incidents, but she did remember that she was either in the bath or the shower and that father touched her butt and put his finger in her vagina. When father touched Alexis most recently, he told her, “Don’t tell anyone or else the police will come and I will get shot.” Alexis stated that she felt sad and wanted to run away.
After the social worker reported father’s alleged sexual abuse of Alexis to the sheriff’s department, two deputies interviewed Alexis. Alexis’s statements to the deputies were consistent with her statements to the social worker. Alexis told the deputies that she was taking a shower when father entered the bathroom, pulled open the shower curtain, and said that he was going to help Alexis take a shower. Father lathered his hands with soap and rubbed her buttocks. Alexis told the deputies that father fondled the outside of her vagina and inserted his finger in her vagina. Alexis told father to stop because the soap on his hands burned her vagina and the penetration felt uncomfortable. Alexis told the deputies that father had touched her on two prior occasions. On one occasion, when Alexis was taking a bath, father entered the bathroom and fondled the outside of her vagina. On the second occasion, when Alexis was five years old, father touched her vagina.
When Detective Simmons investigated Alexis’s claim of abuse, Alexis told him that father touched her private parts. Alexis told Andrew that father had touched her in a “bad way” before the Department or law enforcement began investigating Alexis’s abuse allegation.
2. Alexis’s recantations
Alexis recanted her allegation that father abused her. Alexis told the Department’s investigator that she lied about father touching her private parts and explained that the deputies had made her nervous. Alexis told the investigator that because father was a guy, he was “kind of rough” when he washed her. Alexis said that she and mother had a “really long talk” and her “washing” explanation was the truth. Alexis wanted to know if father could come home and asked the investigator to inform mother of what Alexis had said so mother would know whether Alexis told the investigator a lie or the truth.
Mother told the investigator that Alexis said she was angry with father because he would not let her have some toys. Alexis told mother that she crafted the story of abuse from information gleaned from an interviewer’s (apparently the social worker) questions. Alexis also told her babysitter and paternal aunt that she had lied about father.
At the adjudication hearing, Alexis denied that father touched her while she was taking a shower. Alexis testified that she lied about father touching her private parts because she was mad at him for not letting her friends give her any of their toys or clothes. Alexis could not explain where she got the idea to say that father had washed her front private parts if it was not true or where she came up with the idea to tell the police that father touched her when she lived with her grandfather.
Alexis testified that father was not living with her because she told a lie to the social worker and the police about father touching her private parts. Alexis testified that she believed that if she said in court that father just washed her stomach and back then father would be able to come home. Alexis had spoken with mother about going to court. Mother told Alexis to tell the truth in court and did not tell her what to say.
Andrew told the investigator that Alexis “always lied.” Mother also claimed that Alexis had a history of lying. According to the babysitter, Alexis sometimes told lies when she had done something wrong.
C. Application of Relevant Principles
Drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court’s findings, and considering the record most favorably to the juvenile court’s order, we hold that the juvenile court’s finding of sexual abuse is supported by substantial evidence. (In re L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 947.) The evidence justified the juvenile court’s credibility determination that Alexis was telling the truth when she spoke to the social worker and sheriff’s deputies and not when she later recanted her allegation of sexual abuse. The nature of Alexis’s account of abuse—that father abused Alexis under the pretext of helping her bathe, that father abused Alexis only when mother was not home, and that father warned Alexis not to tell anyone about the abuse or the police would shoot him—provides a level of detail that is far greater than one would expect that a seven year old could invent. Credibility determinations are the juvenile court’s task, not ours. (Ibid.)
Citing In re Maria R. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 48, 67, father contends that even if there is substantial evidence that he abused Alexis, such evidence does not support a jurisdictional finding as to Aden because the sexual abuse of a female child, absent other evidence of risk, does not create a risk for a male sibling. We disagree. We find persuasive the reasoning in In re P.A. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1339, the facts of which case are substantially similar to the facts in this case.
In In re P.A., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 1339, a father who touched his nine-year-old daughter twice in her “private area” was found by the juvenile court to have sexually abused the girl. (Id. at p. 1343.) The juvenile court further found that the girl’s five- and eight-year old brothers were at risk of sexual abuse by reason of the father’s abuse of their sister. (Ibid.) On appeal, the father argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings as to his sons because there was no evidence the father had touched them inappropriately and they were unaware of his abuse of their older sister. (Id. at p. 1345.) The court in In re P.A. rejected that argument, reasoning that “we are convinced that where, as here, a child has been sexually abused, any younger sibling who is approaching the age at which the child was abused, may be found to be at risk of sexual abuse. As we intimated in [In re] Karen R. [(2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 84], aberrant sexual behavior by a parent places the victim’s siblings who remain in the home at risk of aberrant sexual behavior.” (Id. at p. 1347.)
Here, Aden was nearing his fifth birthday when the juvenile court made its jurisdictional findings. Alexis alleged that father abused her most recently when she was seven years old. Because Aden was approaching the age at which Alexis was abused, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Aden was at risk of sexual abuse. (In re P.A., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 1347.)
II. The Juvenile Court’s Removal Order
Father contends that the juvenile court’s removal order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order.
As relevant here, section 361, subdivision (c) prohibits the juvenile court from removing a child from his or her parents’ custody “unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence [that]...: [¶] (1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s... physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c); see also California Rules of Court, rule 5.695(d).) “A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] 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. [Citations.]” (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136, disapproved on another point in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.)
Although the standard of proof in the juvenile court is clear and convincing evidence, our standard of review remains the same: we review the juvenile court’s dispositional order for substantial evidence. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) “[W]e review the record in the light most favorable to the dependency court’s order to determine whether it contains sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings by clear and convincing evidence.” (In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 441.)
We held above that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that father sexually abused Alexis in the family home. The evidence showed that father abused Alexis under the pretext of helping her bathe, that father abused Alexis only when mother was not home, and that father attempted to dissuade Alexis from reporting the abuse by telling her that the police would shoot him if she reported the abuse. Such evidence of aberrant sexual behavior in the home is clear and convincing evidence that there would be “a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being” of Aden and Ashlee if they were not removed from father’s custody. (In re Diamond H., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136 [“the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate”].) Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order.
III. The Juvenile Court’s Dispositional Orders
Father contends that the juvenile court’s orders at disposition that father’s visitation with Aden and Ashlee be monitored, that father take four random drug tests, and that father attend a parenting class are not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence supports the dispositional orders.
We review the juvenile court’s dispositional orders for an abuse of discretion. (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “‘The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion. [Citations.]’” (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.) We review for substantial evidence the findings of fact on which dispositional orders are based. (In re Jasmin C. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 177, 180.)
As discussed above, father sexually abused Aden’s and Ashlee’s sister Alexis in the family home. Under such circumstances, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s discretionary orders for monitored visitation with Aden and Ashlee and parenting classes. The juvenile court’s order for random drug testing appears to be based on the recommendation in the Evidence Code section 730 evaluation that father submit to drug and alcohol testing to determine whether he was abusing substances on a regular basis. Dr. Ronald R. Fairbanks, a psychologist, prepared the evaluation report. According to Dr. Fairbanks, father admitted having an occasional drink of alcohol and to prior marijuana use. Father denied current marijuana use. Dr. Fairbanks opined that father was “seemingly in some denial regarding any abuse of substances of anysignificance.” Father’s admission of prior drug use and Dr. Fairbanks’s opinion that father was in “some denial” regarding substance abuse was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s discretionary order that father take four random drug tests.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., ARMSTRONG, J.