From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Graciela A.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 15, 2008
No. B199326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK65552, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Angelica R.

Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose E.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NEIDORF, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

Angelica R. and Jose E. appeal from the dispositional order declaring Graciela A., J.E. and Jose E. dependent children of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. We affirm.

Angelica R. is also referred to as Angelica E. in the record.

Graciela is also referred to in the record by her middle name, Jasmine. For ease of reference, we will refer to her as Graciela.

Because the child Jose E.’s name is indistinguishable from that of his father and in order to avoid confusion, we hereinafter will refer to the child simply as Jose.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellants are married. Angelica R. is the mother of all three children. Appellant Jose E. is the presumed father of children J.E. and Jose, and the stepfather of Graciela. Jose A. is Graciela’s presumed father.

On behalf of the children, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition in which it alleged that Jose E. sexually abused Graciela, Angelica R. failed to protect her and Graciela’s siblings are at risk of sexual abuse and not being protected.

Detention Report

DCFS’s detention report revealed that on October 21, 2006, Graciela, then nine years of age, was staying with her maternal grandmother, Graciela R. Graciela told her grandmother that her stepfather, appellant Jose E., had been sexually molesting her for more than one year. The most recent incident of abuse happened about two weeks earlier. Although Graciela repeatedly told her mother about the abuse, her mother did not believe her.

Graciela’s grandmother kept Graciela at her house, and on October 26, at the urging of a relative, reported the abuse to the police. The police arrested Jose E. and called DCFS, which took the children into protective custody. DCFS released Graciela to her biological father, and it placed J.E. and Jose (then four and two years old, respectively) into foster care.

According to the police follow-up report, it was Graciela’s second cousin, Delia A., who called the police. Angelica R. was upset with her mother and Delia A. “for ruining everything.”

Graciela told a children’s social worker (CSW) that her stepfather, Jose E., first molested her 10 months earlier. It began with Jose E. entering Graciela’s bedroom at night when everyone was asleep and taking her into the living room, where he pulled down her underwear and digitally penetrated her vagina. Jose E. later began removing his and Graciela’s pants, having Graciela sit on top of him and putting his penis in her vaginal or anal area. According to Graciela, Jose E. last molested her two weeks before DCFS took her and her siblings into protective custody. Between the time Jose E. first molested her and DCFS detained her, Graciela repeatedly told her mother what Jose E. was doing to her, but her mother did not believe her and consequently did nothing.

Although Graciela wanted to tell her father about Jose E., she did not have the courage to do so. She ran away from home several times because of the molestation. She went either to her grandmother’s house or her father’s house. Graciela told the social worker she wanted to live with her father.

While speaking to the CSW, Angelica R. recalled only one time that Graciela told her that her stepfather had been touching her inappropriately. According to Angelica, when she told Graciela that she was going to take her to the doctor, Graciela stated, “Mom it did not happen and I lied to you.” As a result, Angelica did not take Graciela to the doctor. When informed of Graciela’s current allegations, Angelica stated, “It may or may not have happened.”

During a separate interview with J.E., the CSW asked her if anyone had touched her. J.E. shook her head “no.” Jose was too young to be interviewed. The CSW did not observe any marks or bruises on J.E.’s and Jose’s bodies.

Graciela told police that her stepfather “was putting his penis in her butt.” Graciela also said her stepfather put “his thing” in her “front part,” too. When asked for clarification, Graciela pointed to her vagina. The first act of abuse occurred after her ninth birthday. Graciela told her mother what had happened. Graciela did not know if her mother said anything to her stepfather, but he sexually molested her again. Graciela reported the abuse to her mother, but Graciela did not think her mother believed her. Further questioning of Graciela by the police revealed that Jose E. sodomized and raped Graciela. He also forced Graciela to copulate him orally on two occasions.

While in police custody, and after waiving his Miranda rights, Jose E. denied sexually molesting Graciela and stated he loved her as his own daughter. Jose E. repeatedly stated that he and Angelica R. were not getting along and were having financial problems. Whenever the police officer conducting the interview asked about Graciela or the allegations against him, Jose E. quickly changed the subject. The interview was discontinued when Jose E. asked for counsel.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694].

The police also interviewed Angelica R. When asked if Graciela had told her about the molestation, Angelica paused for a long while and said just recently. Angelica denied that Graciela told her about the molestation shortly after Graciela turned nine. Angelica told Graciela that she would have to take her to the doctor about the molestation. The doctor, in turn, would examine her and then call the police because Graciela was telling a story. At this point, Graciela told Angelica R., “I am just making it up, it is not true.”

When the police asked if Angelica R. believed Graciela, Angelica said she did not. Angelica did not believe Jose E. would sexually molest Graciela.

Angelica R. was uncooperative during the interview and gave vague answers. Angelica was very upset at her mother for calling the police and ruining her family. At no time during the interview did Angelica inquire about Graciela.

Detention Hearing

At the detention hearing, Graciela was released to her non-offending father, Jose A. The other children were ordered detained and their care and custody was vested with DCFS. Appellants were granted monitored visits with J.E. and Jose. Angelica R. was granted monitored visits with Graciela. The court ordered Jose E. to keep at least 500 yards away from Graciela and to have no contact with her. Individual counseling was ordered for Graciela with family reunification ordered for appellants.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

In its jurisdiction/disposition report filed on December 6, 2006, DCFS reported that during a subsequent interview on November 29, 2006, Graciela told the CSW that “[a]fter I turned nine, Jose [E.] started to touch my front part.” When the CSW asked Graciela when she meant by her “front part,” Graciela pointed to her vagina.

Graciela explained that “it was at night and Jose [E.] woke me up and took me to the couch, she sat on the couch and he made me open my legs with my back facing him. I started to cry because I was scared and then he told me that if I said anything he was going to spank me. He pulled my underwear down and then put his private in my butt. He was pushing me to go back and forth.” The CSW then asked Graciela if Jose E.’s “private” was inside or outside her “butt.” Graciela stated that Jose E.’s private was “inside because it was hurting me and every time he did this my private burned. It hurt my butt because my poop hurts to come out.”

The CSW then asked Graciela if Jose E. touched her anywhere else with his “private.” Graciela said, “yes, where I go pee, it was inside there and I saw his private up all the time, it had some hair on it. I threw up sometimes because Jose made me put his private in my mouth and he h[eld] my head.” This happened twice. Graciela did not know if anything came out of Jose E.’s penis.

With regard to whether she told her mother what Jose E. had done, Graciela stated: “[T]he first time it happened I told her and I don’t think she believed me, she told me that she had told him to stop, but he didn’t. When my mom was at work, and when my little sister and brother were watching TV, he made me [go] to the room and that’s the first time that he was on top of me.” “I was crying and he told me that he was going to hit me, he took hi[s] bottom parts off and then pulled my underwear down and he put his private in my butt for a long time, afterward I threw up. I don’t want to go with my mom, she doesn’t believe me, I’m scared to go with her or that Jose [E.] is going to hit me. I want to stay with my dad, my mom never let me see him or spend time with him because she said that I didn’t need to.”

During a telephonic interview on December 1, 2006, Angelica R. told the CSW the following: “I don’t see how Graciela could have been touched or had sex with my husband while I was always with her. During the day she was at school, after school I [w]as home, and when I left to work at 11:30 p.m. she was with a babysitter or with my mother. Jose [E.] works all night and day practically, he has no days off. Up until he was incarcerated he worked all the time, after he was released from jail, he got a new job. I just don’t see how it could have happened, I am not saying that I don’t believe her but, I just don’t have an explanation for what happened. I have been the one to tell Graciela that if anyone had touched her private parts, to tell me. Graciela had never told me that Jose was touching her. Once we had this conversation, Graciela then asked me what would happen if someone did touch her, I explained that it would be a serious matter and that person would probably go to jail and she automatically said never mind. My family needed to mind their own business and well everyone believes Graciela, I did not know of what happened until the police got involved.”

The CSW also spoke with Graciela’s maternal grandmother on December 1. The grandmother explained that “[w]hen she told her daughter, Angelica R. of the molestation, she had told me that she had already taken Graciela to the doctor, I believed her and did not think of it anymore.” The grandmother continued: “Graciela had already told my daughter that Jose was touching her. Graciela did not want to go home and I told my daughter that she had no choice and I was going to keep Graciela until her problems were solved.” Angelica R. told her mother that she did not leave Graciela alone and questioned how anything could have happened. The grandmother stated she believed Graciela. “[S]he doesn’t lie or make things up, since she’s been in my care so much, I could tell when she was lying to me, I could see the fear in her when she did not want to go home.”

Jurisdictional Hearing

At the jurisdictional hearing, the court admitted the detention report and jurisdiction/disposition report into evidence. Beside these reports, the court considered the testimony of Graciela, Jose E., Angelica R. and Sandra Elvik, a certified pediatric nurse practitioner.

Graciela testified that she did not like living with her mother because of what her stepfather did to her. Graciela detailed anew the acts of sexual molestation Jose E. forced her to endure while her siblings were at home, as well as Jose E.’s threats to hit her if she told anyone. Although Graciela described acts of forcible sodomy and digital vaginal penetration by Jose E., she denied that Jose E. inserted his penis into her vagina or her mouth.

Graciela told her mother that Jose E. was molesting her sexually. Angelica R. did not believe Graciela, however.

Graciela did not want to live with Jose E., in that she believed he was a bad person. She was glad he was in trouble for molesting her. Graciela denied that her mother told her that if anyone touched her, he would go to jail.

Appellant Jose E. testified that he did not touch Graciela in a sexual or inappropriate manner. Graciela’s accusations made him feel “[r]eally bad.” He believed “she does not like what [he] tell[s] her to do at home at all.” He has cared for Graciela since she was two years old, and he loves her like his own child.

Angelica R. testified that in June 2006, she talked to Graciela about “what could happen when people touch her in the wrong way, be it her father or grandmother, her uncle or friends.” At no time after this conversation and before her detention did Graciela tell her mother that Jose E. had touched her inappropriately. Angelica R. discussed the subject with Graciela because her grandmother would permit her to visit her father. When Graciela came home, she would be upset and state that she did not want to go to her father’s house anymore, in that he did not take care of her or pay attention to her. In Angelica’s view, Jose E. is not the type of man who would sexually abuse Graciela.

Sandra Elvik, a certified pediatric nurse practitioner, performed a complete physical examination of Graciela. An examination of her vaginal area revealed a normal hymen. There was “no sign of trauma, no bruising, no unusual redness, no scarring, no tearing, no discharge coming out of the vagina, no unusual rashes or bumps.” Nurse Elvik also detected no abnormalities to the exterior anal area.

Nurse Elvik explained that “[o]ne can never tell completely whether one’s a virgin based upon the examination. There are girls who are virgins who have normal exams. There are girls who are sexually active who have normal hymens. In fact 80 to 90 percent of exams that I do are completely normal. So just looking at the examination one cannot tell 100 percent” if a girl is a virgin. A person conducting an external examination can determine only whether or not there are abnormalities such as scarring, tearing, or discharge. Nurse Elvik was unable to tell from her examination of Graciela whether or not Graciela had been sexually abused.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court amended the allegations to conform to proof, sustained the petition as amended, and found Graciela to be a person described by subdivisions (b) and (d) of section 300 and J.E. and Jose to be persons described by subdivisions (b), (d) and (j). The juvenile court expressly found Graciela to be credible.

As sustained, paragraphs b-1, d-1 and j-1 provide: “On or about October 7, 2006 and on numerous prior occasions since 2005, the children Graciela A[.], J[.] E[.], and Jose E[.]’s mother Angelica [R.]’s male companion Jose [E.], father of the children J[.E.] and Jose sexually abused the child Graciela. Said ongoing sexual abuse includes, but is not limited to forced sodomy by placing his penis in the child’s anus, and the E[.] father digitally penetrating the child’s vagina and anus. Further the E[. father] threatened the child with physical abuse if the child disclosed the sexual abuse. Further the child’s mother failed to take action to protect the child Graciela from the ongoing sexual abuse of the child in that the child informed the mother of the sexual abuse of the child by the E[.] father. The mother allowed the E[.] father to reside in the child’s home and to have unlimited access to the child Graciela. Such sexual abuse of the child Graciela by the E[.] father and the child’s mother’s failure to protect the child endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and safety and places the child and the child’s siblings J[.E.] and Jose at risk of physical harm, damage, danger, sexual abuse and failure to protect.” Allegations of forced sexual intercourse were deleted.

Disposition

The juvenile court declared Graciela a dependent pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). The court issued a family law custody order giving Jose A. legal and physical custody of Graciela and granting Angelica R. supervised visitation. The court denied Angelica R. family reunification services as to Graciela, concluding they would not be in her best interests. The court then terminated its jurisdiction over Graciela.

With regard to J.E. and Jose, the court declared them dependents under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) and (j) and removed them from appellants’ custody. The court ordered family reunification services for appellants.

CONTENTIONS

Angelica R. contends (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s determination that she knew Graciela was being sexually abused; (2) the court abused its discretion in denying her family reunification services and terminating jurisdiction over Graciela with a family law order; (3) in any event, the court erred in failing to include a provision ensuring visitation between Graciela and her siblings; and (4) Graciela’s counsel developed a conflict when he advocated the denial of family reunification services as to Graciela but advocated for family reunification services as to J.E. and Jose.

Jose E. contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding that he sexually abused Graciela; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that J.E. and Jose were at substantial risk within the meaning of subdivision (j) of section 300; and (3) the dispositional order removing J.E. and Jose from appellants’ custody was not supported by substantial evidence that there were no reasonable means to protect them or that there was a substantial risk to return them to appellants’ custody.

Jose E. also joins in Angelica R.’s contentions to the extent they benefit him or the children. Angelica R., in turn, joins and adopts Jose E.’s arguments.

DISCUSSION

I. Angelica R.’s Appeal

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Angelica R. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect Graciela from sexual abuse at the hands of Jose E. On appeal, the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings are viewed under the substantial evidence test. “On appeal from an order making jurisdictional findings, we must uphold the court’s findings unless, after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is no substantial evidence to support the findings. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. [Citation.]” (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 185.)

As explained below in greater detail, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that Jose E. sexually abused Graciela. The child’s statements and testimony that she told her mother about the abuse on more than one occasion and that her mother did not believe her or do anything to protect her from the abuse is more than sufficient evidence to uphold the court’s finding that Angelica R. knew about the abuse and failed to protect Graciela. (In re Veronica G., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 185.)

Denial of Family Reunification Services & Termination of Jurisdiction

Angelica R. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her family reunification services, issuing its custody order and terminating its jurisdiction with respect to Graciela. We disagree.

The juvenile court’s decision to grant or deny family reunification services is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179.) In addition, a custody order will not be disturbed unless it “‘exceed[s] the limits of legal discretion.’” (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 421.)

Subdivision (a) of section 361.2 provides that “[w]hen a court orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent requests custody, the court shall place the minor with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.”

If the court places the child with the non-offending, noncustodial parent, the court may “[o]rder that the parent become legal and physical custodian of the child. The court may also provide reasonable visitation by the noncustodial parent. The court shall then terminate its jurisdiction over the child. The custody order shall continue unless modified by a subsequent order of the superior court.” (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(1).)

In this case, the juvenile court placed Graciela with her non-offending, noncustodial father, Jose A. The court further issued a family law order granting Jose A. legal and physical custody of Graciela and granting Angelica R. visitation. Having done so, the court was required by section 361.2, subdivision (b)(1), to terminate its jurisdiction over Graciela.

With regard to family reunification services, “[i]f the previously noncustodial parent can provide a safe and stable permanent home for the child and the evidence establishes that the other parent cannot, reunification services may be offered only to the previously noncustodial parent since this serves the Legislature’s goals by placing the child in parental custody and providing for a safe and stable permanent home for the child.” (In re Ericka W. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 470, 476.)

Implicit within the juvenile court’s custody order is its determination that Jose A. was the appropriate placement for Graciela and that Angelica R. with whom Graciela had been living was not. Given Angelica R.’s persistent refusal to believe that Jose E. could have abused Graciela, the court’s determination was the correct one. Keeping in mind that reunification services are designed to facilitate the return of a dependent child to parental custody (In re Erika W., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 478), such services may be withheld from a parent to whom the child will not be returned. (Ibid.) The juvenile court properly exercised its discretion to deny Angelica R. family reunification services with respect to Graciela.

Sibling Visitation

Angelica R. contends that in the event we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying her family reunification services and terminating its jurisdiction over Graciela, the court erred in failing to include a provision ensuring visitation between Graciela and her siblings. Assuming for the sake of argument that Angelica R. has standing to raise the issue of sibling visitation, she has forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. 2; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 641; In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 416.)

Conflict of Interest

Finally, Angelica R. contends that Graciela’s counsel developed a conflict of interest when he advocated the denial of family reunification as to Graciela but advocated for family reunification as to J.E. and Jose. Assuming for the sake of argument that Angelica R. has standing to raise the issue, she has forfeited it by virtue of her failure to object below. The juvenile court appointed one attorney to represent all three children. Angelica R. did not object at the time or at any future hearing. Having failed to object below, she is precluded from doing so for the first time on appeal. (California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Antonelli (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 113, 122.)

II. Jose E.’s Appeal

A. Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Jose E. Sexually Abused Graciela.

Jose E. contends that Graciela’s testimony was inherently improbable and thus insufficient to support the finding that he sexually abused her. We are not convinced.

Although Graciela’s accounts of the details and types of sexual abuse she endured were not entirely consistent, she never waivered that Jose E. sexually molested her. The court expressed its belief that, despite her inconsistencies, Graciela was a credible witness. We defer to the juvenile court on the issue of Graciela’s credibility. (Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Com. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1155.) As the court in In re Daniel G. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 824 at page 830 so aptly noted: “The trier of fact determines the credibility of witnesses, weighs the evidence, and resolves factual conflicts. We cannot reject the testimony of a witness that the trier of fact chooses to believe unless the testimony is physically impossible or its falsity is apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. As part of its task, the trier of fact may believe and accept as true only part of a witness’s testimony and disregard the rest. On appeal, we must accept that part of the testimony which supports the judgment. [Citation.]”

We therefore reject Jose E.’s assertion that the inconsistencies in Graciela’s testimony rendered her testimony inherently improbable. “‘[N]either conflicts in the evidence nor “‘testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion . . . justif[ies] the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the [trier of fact] to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.”’ [Citations.] Testimony may be rejected only when it is inherently improbable or incredible, i.e., ‘“unbelievable per se,”’ physically impossible or ‘“wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds.”’ [Citation.]” (Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Com., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1155, quoting Oldham v. Kizer (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1065.) Jose E. has failed to demonstrate that Graciela’s testimony was inherently improbable or incredible.

We also reject Jose E.’s assertion that the sexual molestation was impossible given the findings of Nurse Elvik. Although her examination revealed no abnormalities to Graciela’s vaginal or anal areas, Nurse Elvik made it clear that she was unable to tell from her examination whether or not Graciela had been sexually abused.

B. The Evidence is Sufficient to Support the Finding that Graciela’s Siblings were at Substantial Risk of Being Abused Sexually Within the Meaning of Section 300, Subdivision (j).

Jose E. challenges the juvenile court’s finding that his biological children, J.E. and Jose, are at risk of being sexually abused. In Jose E.’s view, assuming Graciela had been truthful, there was insufficient evidence to find that J.E., his four-year-old daughter, and Jose, his three-year-old son, were at substantial risk of sexual abuse given their ages and sexes.

We agree with our colleagues in Division Three that a father who has sexually abused his daughter “reasonably can be said to be so sexually aberrant that both male and female siblings of the victim are at substantial risk of sexual abuse.” (In re Karen R. (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 84, 90-91; accord, In re P.A. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1346-1347.) This conclusion is particularly compelled here, in that Jose E. sexually abused Graciela while J.E. and Jose were in the home. In fact, Graciela testified that on one occasion Jose walked into the bedroom while Jose E. was molesting her. Substantial evidence therefore supports the juvenile court’s determination that J.E. and Jose were at risk of similar abuse. Jose E. has failed to convince us that In re Rubisela E. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 177 compels a contrary conclusion.

C. The Court Properly Removed J.E. and Jose from the Custody of Their Parents.

There is no merit to Jose E.’s assertion that the court improperly removed J.E. and Jose from appellants’ custody. Section 361, subdivision (c), authorizes the juvenile court to remove a dependent child from his parents’ physical custody if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the following circumstances, among others:

“(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 or guardian’s physical custody. . . .”

“(4) The minor or a sibling of the minor has been sexually abused, or is deemed to be at substantial risk of being sexually abused, by a parent, guardian, or member of his or her household, or other person known to his or her parent, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor can be protected from further sexual abuse or a substantial risk of sexual abuse without removing the minor from his or her parent or guardian, or the minor does not wish to return to his or her parent or guardian.”

Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that Graciela’s siblings were at substantial risk of sexual abuse by J.E. and Angelica R. failed to protect Graciela, we conclude that the court acted well within its discretion in removing all the children from appellants’ custody.

Jose E. maintains that the court could have ordered him to move out of the family home and permitted J.E. and Jose to remain in Angelica R.’s custody. We disagree. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearings, Angelica R., who already had enrolled in parenting classes and individual counseling, still did not believe that Jose E. sexually molested Graciela. Her failure to protect Graciela remained a vital concern justifying the removal of all the children from the custody of both parents.

The order is affirmed.

We concur: MALLANO, P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

In re Graciela A.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 15, 2008
No. B199326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2008)
Case details for

In re Graciela A.

Case Details

Full title:In re GRACIELA A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 15, 2008

Citations

No. B199326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2008)