Opinion
B298186
03-27-2020
In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LENA H., Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela J. Deavours, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP04955B) APPEAL from findings and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Akemi D. Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. Pamela J. Deavours, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Lena H. (Lena), the legal guardian of A.H. (born Feb. 2010) and former legal guardian of G.H. (born Nov. 2004; collectively the children), challenges juvenile court jurisdictional findings and a dispositional order of six months of informal supervision concerning A.H.
As set forth below, while these proceedings were pending, Lena's legal guardianship of G.H. was terminated. Thus, this appeal only concerns A.H.
Because the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm those findings. Lena's challenge to the order of six months of informal supervision is dismissed as moot because the six-month period lapsed on October 30, 2019.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Detention Report (Aug. 8, 2018)
On April 10, 2015, the District Court of Oklahoma appointed Lena, the children's paternal aunt, as legal guardian over the children as the result of sexual abuse of G.H. by her father and neglect of the children by their mother. Lena moved the children to California.
On August 4, 2018, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that then 13-year-old G.H. was the victim of sexual abuse by her 26-year-old cousin. G.H. had run away from home and, after she had been located, reported that she had been sexually assaulted by Lena's son, Michael H. (Michael). Michael had forced G.H. to have sex with him every day beginning in April 2018, until five days earlier. He found out that G.H. told her friend about their sexual relations and he slapped G.H. The referral provided that Michael had been arrested for rape and domestic violence and that there was a risk to the children because their legal guardian was the perpetrator's mother.
A social worker contacted the children's aunt, Denise F. (Denise), who reported that G.H. had run away with her cousin, Emily O. (Emily). Emily's mother found G.H. and Emily at her home and G.H. told her about the sexual abuse. Emily's mother contacted Denise, who went to the home to speak to G.H. Denise then contacted law enforcement. Denise did not have any safety concerns for the children in Lena's care.
The social worker next interviewed the responding police officers. They reported that G.H. had told them that she and Michael had been having a sexual relationship since April 2018. In April 2018, Michael was talking to G.H. in her bedroom when he began to touch her over her clothes. He then touched her breast, buttocks, and vagina underneath her clothing. Then, he had oral sex and sexual intercourse with her. G.H. told the police officers that she and Michael had sexual intercourse daily; the last incident occurred six days earlier. She did not express fear of Michael and was okay with him touching her. There were incidences where G.H. would feel pain during the sexual intercourse, and she would tell Michael, he would stop.
G.H. informed the police officers that she ran away with Emily because Michael had slapped her after he learned that she had told a friend about their sexual relationship. G.H. took Michael's cellular telephone when she ran away because he had taken photos and videos of them having sex.
The police officers arrested Michael for rape. The officers informed the social worker that they did not release G.H. to Lena because she was Michael's biological mother and she did not believe that Michael had sexually assaulted G.H. Lena stated that she preferred to have G.H. in foster care for the problems she had caused. G.H. also refused to return to Lena's care.
The social worker interviewed G.H., who reiterated what she had stated about her sexual relationship with Michael. G.H. did not witness any inappropriate interactions between Michael and A.H. G.H. felt responsible for Michael's arrest.
G.H. also told the social worker that Lena had disciplined her with belts and her hands on G.H.'s buttocks in the past. She would also ground G.H. in her bedroom and scold her loudly. Lena would discipline A.H. in the same manner. G.H. did not feel safe returning to Lena's home because Lena did not believe her about the sexual abuse.
The social worker visited Lena and A.H. at Lena's home. Lena reported that she and A.H. slept in their own bedrooms upstairs and Michael and G.H. slept in their own bedrooms downstairs. While Lena was at a convention out of town, G.H. had run away. Her family had searched for G.H. until she received a telephone call from Denise stating that G.H. had been found. Denise informed Lena that Michael had sexually abused G.H., and Lena was "completely shocked." Lena denied stating that she did not believe G.H. She did not blame G.H. for any of the problems and did not want her placed in foster care.
Lena had not seen any inappropriate interactions between Michael and the children. Neither G.H. nor A.H. had ever disclosed any abuse, and Lena was surprised by the information. Lena reported that Michael was no longer allowed in the house or allowed to have contact with the children. The social worker explained to Lena that G.H. would be detained; Lena consented to A.H. also being detained in foster care.
A.H. reported that she had not seen any inappropriate interaction between Michael and G.H. A.H. said that no one had touched her inappropriately. She informed the social worker that Lena would discipline her and G.H. by grounding them in their bedrooms or scolding them loudly. A.H. felt safe in Lena's care.
After the children were placed in foster care, Lena informed the social worker that she rescinded her consent for A.H. to be detained. She reported that she had removed all of Michael's belongings from the home, and she did not have any plans to bail him out of jail. She said that she would protect G.H. and A.H.
On August 5, 2018, the children's foster mother reported that G.H. did not want to return to Lena's care. A.H. appeared protective of Lena and would say that this was not Lena's fault.
A.H. later told the social worker that G.H. spent the prior night crying because she missed Michael and felt sad that he was in jail. A.H. reported that she now felt comfortable sharing that Michael often touched her thigh area when they watched television or played video games. A.H. would become uncomfortable and move Michael's hand. She also reported that Michael often kissed her lips. Sometimes, she would be able to quickly move her face to the side so he would kiss her cheek. She had not told anyone of Michael's actions because she was afraid. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 Petition
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
On August 7, 2018, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (j), on behalf of the children. The petition alleged: (1) on prior occasions, Lena physically abused G.H. by striking her with a belt; (2) G.H. had been sexually abused by her 26-year-old cousin since April 2018; (3) the sexual abuse consisted of Michael engaging in sexual intercourse with G.H., fondling her breasts, buttocks, and vagina, and engaging in oral copulation; (4) on August 2, 2018, Michael slapped G.H.'s face after G.H. disclosed the sexual abuse to her friend; (5) Lena failed to protect G.H. when she knew or reasonably should have known of the sexual abuse; (6) A.H. was sexually abused by Michael; (7) on prior occasions, Michael had kissed A.H. on the lips and fondled her thighs; (8) Lena failed to protect A.H. when she knew or reasonably should have known of the sexual abuse; and (9) Lena created a detrimental and endangering home environment by allowing Michael to possess, use, and be under the influence of marijuana in the children's home. Detention Hearing (Aug. 8, 2018)
At the detention hearing, Lena testified that she did not know about the sexual abuse. She was shocked; she thought G.H. had run away to hang out with boys. Lena believed A.H. and G.H. "completely." She did not believe that the abuse was the children's fault. She had removed Michael from the home, notified all family members about the severity of what had happened, and she had obtained a protective order against Michael. She also testified that she had secured therapeutic services with a psychologist and that they would follow through with what the psychologist recommended. Lena further stated that she had turned Michael's room into an office and moved G.H.'s bed into A.H.'s room upstairs. She testified that she would call the police if Michael showed up at her home. When asked whether Lena chose her nieces over her son, she replied, "They are as much my daughters as he is my son."
The juvenile court stated that Lena had "credibly testified that she was not aware at all of any inappropriate sexual interactions between her son and either girl." It believed that Lena did not know about the sexual abuse, that she did not blame the children for the abuse, that she intended to follow through with therapy, and that she would take steps to keep the children safe. It ordered A.H. released to Lena and ordered DCFS to make unannounced visits twice a month. It further ordered G.H. and A.H. to participate in forensic interviews. A.H.'s Forensic Interview (Aug. 10, 2018)
During her forensic interview, A.H. reported that Michael had "touched [her] in an uncomfortable spot." She continued: "So I moved the person's hand . . . and sometimes I put my leg up, and then his hand dropped." Afterwards, he would stop touching her, and they would watch television.
A.H. stated that the third time Michael attempted to touch her was the worst time because "he put [his hand] even closer [to her vagina], but that time, I was really uncomfortable, so I just scooched . . . really far." A.H. wanted to tell Michael to stop, but she was afraid to hurt his feelings, so she moved away. A.H. felt scared when Michael was touching her. During the times Michael touched her, G.H. was in her room and Lena was "probably at yoga or in her room working."
A.H. also reported: "Sometimes like when he [is] talking to me . . . , he like hugs me then lays down, and I'm not very comfortable with that, and putting his hand on my leg, and sometimes, like he would kiss me on the lips, and I wouldn't like that . . . , like but that's why like I kiss him on the cheek so much, but he like sometimes like makes me . . . do it or just like forces my head or something." A.H. did not tell Michael she did not want to kiss him on the lips because "I don't wanna make him mad or sad or anything like that."
A.H. reported that she had witnessed G.H. performing oral copulation on Michael. She had walked into a room and saw Michael laying down and G.H. on her knees. When she walked in, Michael sat up and told A.H. that G.H. was crying. A.H. saw Michael's pants and underwear on the floor. She said that she had not told anyone what she saw because G.H. told her not to tell anyone.
A.H. was sad and scared about everything that had occurred. She was sad that Michael had abused her sister, and she was scared that he would go to the house or to her school. Lena told A.H. that she did not want to see Michael anymore, that she was sorry he had hurt her, and that A.H. should always tell the truth and be strong. A.H. stated that she wanted to live with Lena and G.H. G.H.'s Forensic Interview
G.H. described how the sexual abuse began and stated that Michael continually asked her if she was okay and whether she felt safe. G.H. said that the sexual abuse occurred almost daily while Lena was at work. She said that Michael was not a bad person; he was trying to help her "from like going to other guys." He was the only person that G.H. talked to about everything. She and Michael really liked each other.
Regarding Lena, G.H. stated that Lena did not believe her at first because she thought that G.H. had made up the story as an excuse for running away. Lena punched G.H. G.H. reported that Lena then began to say that Michael was not her son anymore and she did not know how this could have happened in her home. Lena told G.H. to tell the truth.
G.H. reported that A.H. had walked in on them having oral sex, but "we made her believe that I was crying on his lap." G.H. stated that she and A.H. missed Michael. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report and Last Minute Information for the Court (Oct. 4, 2018)
In these documents, the social worker reported about her interviews with various persons.
A.H.'s principal
On September 11, 2018, the social worker interviewed A.H.'s school principal, who reported that she was familiar with the family and Lena had been proactive in meeting A.H.'s needs. Lena had given the school a copy of the case report and alerted them that A.H. may be missing G.H. The school principal stated that A.H. looked really happy when she was with Lena and there were no concerns.
A.H.
On September 13, 2018, the social worker interviewed A.H. at Lena's home. A.H. appeared guarded and cautious when talking to the social worker. A.H. enjoyed living with Lena and denied any forms of abuse or neglect by her aunt. She missed G.H. and had not seen Michael except for when he was outside the house one day to pick up his belongings.
Lena
On September 14, 2018, the social worker interviewed Lena. She appeared overwhelmed and stated that she had been very stressed. She did not know that her son was sexually abusing G.H. She stated that she had been sexually abused as a child by her brother, G.H. and A.H.'s father. As soon as her brother had sexually abused her, she reported it. Lena had spoken to the children about good and bad touching and she did not understand why G.H. never told her about the abuse. She was undergoing therapy and seeing someone to help her understand the intergenerational sexual abuse in her family. She reported that she loved the children and never would have thought about giving them up, but G.H. was requesting not to be returned to her so she had no choice but to give up and allow G.H. some space. She wanted G.H. returned to her care, but because G.H. had threatened to kill herself if she returned to Lena's home and she loved G.H., she was going to move forward with terminating the legal guardianship over G.H.
Lena told the social worker that she understood her son's actions were not okay, but she reported that "all of these issues started prior to the sexual abuse disclosure and it is all due to [G.H.] reaching out to her mother via Facebook." Lena stated that she was not saying that the sexual abuse was not true, but the physical abuse that she was being accused of was not true. She opined that the children's mother was putting them up to reporting physical abuse in order to have them returned to their mother's care. Since G.H. had contact with their mother, she had been rude and disobedient, and her grades had suffered. Lena reported that she had never hit the children, but she admitted that she did threaten to hit them with a belt; she also admitted to cutting off G.H.'s hair as a form of punishment for ditching school. Lena stated that G.H. and A.H. were always good children and there was no need to punish them. Lastly, Lena informed the social worker that she did not fail to protect G.H. because she did not know of the abuse and never saw anything that would have caused her concern.
G.H.
During the social worker's interview of G.H. at her group home, G.H. stated that she had run away from the group home two weeks earlier. She also reported that one month earlier, she attempted suicide. She stated that she had gotten into a "bad" argument with Lena and she took pills to kill herself. G.H. stated that Lena blamed her for what she reported.
The social worker asked if G.H. had any concerns about A.H. living with Lena. G.H. stated that she had seen Lena pull A.H.'s hair, slap her, and hit her with a belt. Lena had anger issues and would get mad easily. She was verbally abusive and, at times, physically abusive. G.H. stated that Lena had a pattern of being abusive and then fixing what she had done by buying them things afterwards. G.H. expressed anger at Lena for failing to protect her.
Police officers
On September 18, 2018, the social worker spoke to the investigating police officers, who reported that no charges had been filed against Michael yet. One officer would see Michael hang out at the bus stop a few blocks away from Lena's home. He had been hospitalized a week-and-a-half earlier for wanting to commit suicide. When the officer saw him last, he observed Michael using methamphetamine and marijuana.
Updated information regarding G.H.
On September 21, 2018, the social worker placed G.H. in a new foster home. A week later, G.H. attempted suicide by overdosing on the foster mother's medication and was placed on a hospital hold. The foster mother reported that G.H. wanted to go out for a run the night before, but the foster mother did not allow it and G.H. took the medication.
Lena continued to state that she wished to terminate her legal guardianship over G.H. DCFS made attempts to change Lena's mind, but Lena stated that since G.H. threatened to hurt herself if returned to Lena's care, Lena wanted to terminate the legal guardianship to prevent the child from hurting herself. G.H. felt betrayed and not wanted by Lena. G.H. believed that Lena was taking Michael's side. Last Minute Information for the Court (Nov. 13, 2018)
The social worker recommended DCFS supervision of the family for at least six months to ensure A.H.'s safety. Lena did not want DCFS involvement because A.H. appeared stressed when she saw a social worker and would ask whether she was being removed from Lena's care.
The social worker noted that Lena had enrolled in therapy. Lena had also been proactive in obtaining services for A.H.
DCFS also provided the juvenile court with a progress report from Lena's therapist dated September 29, 2018. Lena had participated in five therapy sessions; she did not cancel any sessions, and she was consistently on time. At the outset, Lena requested that the therapy sessions focus on anger management and sexual abuse awareness. The therapist reported that Lena "ha[d] been very diligent in keeping the work focused on these 2 issues. [Lena] is a high functioning individual and she is very engaged in the therapeutic process. The prognosis is good that she be able to use the therapy for personal growth and to be better able to meet the emotional needs of her nieces."
First Amended Section 300 Petition
On October 9, 2018, DCFS filed a first amended section 300 petition, adding allegations that: (1) On or about August 2, 2018, Michael slapped G.H.'s face after she disclosed the sexual abuse to her friend; (2) Lena failed to protect G.H. when she knew or reasonably should have known of the abuse by Michael; (3) Lena requested to have her legal guardianship over G.H. terminated; (4) G.H. had attempted suicide and had been hospitalized due to the sexual and emotional abuse she had suffered while in Lena's care; and (5) allegations against the children's mother and father. Letter from Lena's Therapist (Mar. 9, 2019)
The juvenile court was provided with a letter from Lena's therapist, who reported that Lena had participated in 14 psychotherapy sessions since she began therapy. The therapist stated: "The prognosis remains favorable in that she is able to use the therapy for personal growth and to be better able to meet the emotional needs of" A.H. Adjudication Hearing (Mar. 11, 2019)
Juvenile court strikes certain allegations from the section 300 petition
First, the juvenile court noted that Lena's legal guardianship over G.H. had been terminated. As a result, DCFS requested that the juvenile court dismiss the following allegations from the section 300 petition: (1) Lena physically abused G.H.; (2) on August 2, 2018, Michael slapped G.H. on the face and Lena knew or should have known of the abuse; and (3) Lena refused to receive services for G.H., refused to have G.H. in her home, and requested to terminate her legal guardianship over the child. The juvenile court struck those allegations from the petition.
Lena's testimony
Then Lena testified. She reported what she had learned from Denise of the sexual abuse. She stated that she and A.H. had been in counseling once a week since August 2018. She believed that the therapy encouraged A.H. and Lena to talk about things that they otherwise would not talk about. A.H. spoke to Lena and confided in her.
Lena stated that she cleared out Michael's room and obtained a restraining order after she found out about the sexual abuse. When asked why she packed up Michael's room, she replied: "Because my world fell apart and something needed to change, and I did not know who to believe. I wanted him out of there." She explained that she had obtained the restraining order "because [she] didn't want there to be any question in [her] willingness and dedication to protect [her] niece."
Lena did not know about Michael's inappropriate interactions with A.H. After the case began, A.H. told her about what had happened with Michael, and Lena told A.H. that it was good that she felt strong enough to push Michael's hand away. Lena told A.H., "If anyone touches her anywhere, that it's okay to push their hand away if it makes her feel uncomfortable and tell me if it happens."
Juvenile court findings
After listening to the testimony, the juvenile court stated: "[B]y all accounts, [G.H.] and Michael were having a relationship that was completely inappropriate by all accounts. . . . [¶] By all accounts, both Michael and [G.H.] did everything they did to hide it, and to make sure that nobody knew about it. So for us then—for us to say [that Lena] should have known is somewhat difficult for the court to accept." The juvenile court noted that Lena "took corrective action doing what she could."
Thereafter, the juvenile court sustained the petition under section 300 subdivision (j), as amended, stating: "Because in that regard, we're talking about basically saying she should have. She didn't know. It's pretty clear she didn't. [¶] But as to just ignore it and say she should have known it, can't say that either. What I think should happen is the court should sustain it as the (j)(1) amended to indicate that [Lena] failed to protect the child when she reasonably should have known. So I am striking the known language."
The juvenile court also sustained the allegations in the petition against the children's mother and father.
Matter is continued
The juvenile court then turned to disposition. It indicated that it was inclined to move forward under section 360, subdivision (b), so A.H. would not be under the jurisdiction of the court. The matter was continued to April 30, 2019. Disposition Hearing (Apr. 30, 2019)
Lena's testimony
Lena testified that she continued to participate in therapy once a week. In therapy, Lena stated that she addresses "the elements of the—that were suggested by the initial judge: anger management, sexual abuse awareness." She and the therapist "talk about how I can be aware of issues going forward initially with [G.H.] The idea was that she remain in my home. But now we're focused solely on [A.H.] Just—and she is great at helping me unpack my feelings obviously of guilt because he is my son and recognizing the dysfunction that was going on that allowed me not to be aware of the abuse." She also participated in family therapy once a week and intended to continue family therapy "indefinitely throughout [A.H.'s] teenage years." Notably, the family counselor was a life coach and not a licensed psychotherapist. A.H. had only participated in individual therapy from September to December 2018. A.H. had a telephone intake appointment school-based individual therapy, but had not yet begun such treatment. Lena planned to have A.H. participate in therapy indefinitely.
DCFS asked whether Lena would be willing to sign a contract with DCFS to continue in counseling and allow DCFS to supervise the case. Lena replied: "I will do whatever the court wants me to do, and I am going to participate in counseling regardless [of] whether the court grants the petition or continues to grant supervision by DCFS."
DCFS's request
DCFS recommended that the juvenile court order continued supervision by DCFS to ensure that the therapeutic goals were met.
A.H.'s request
A.H.'s counsel joined in DCFS's recommendation, arguing, "I do not feel that it is in the best interest of the child at this point to have an outright dismissal of the case." Counsel explained: "I'm a little concerned that she is not in therapy right now. She is not with a licensed therapist. She is with a life coach, and it's been since December. And it's now well four months in and she ha[d] not seen a licensed therapist in all that time, and that is very concerning to me over the life of the case."
Lena's request
Lena asked that the juvenile court dismiss the case and terminate jurisdiction.
Juvenile court order
The juvenile court then issued its ruling. "By no means does this court think [that Lena] has not been making extreme efforts to ensure the safety of [A.H.] and doing really well in that by all accounts she is ongoing in addressing her therapeutic needs and goals as well as [A.H.'s] and will continue to do so." But, the juvenile court "absolutely [had] to agree with [DCFS]. I asked for the assessment of [section 360, subdivision (b),] because I think that's an appropriate outcome. I don't believe that there needs to be normal jurisdiction. I just need there to be some eyes to make sure [A.H.] gets back into therapy and finishes those programs."
The juvenile court ordered A.H. to remain with Lena, under the supervision of DCFS, pursuant to section 301. It specified: "That's six months of them just checking in, making sure all of those counseling needs are being met for" A.H. It then dismissed the petition under section 360, subdivision (b), "with the understanding [that] if [A.H.'s] needs are not being met in the next six months, they can refile a petition. Otherwise, we will never see [Lena] here again."
Appeal
Lena timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Jurisdictional Findings
Lena argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings in A.H.'s case.
A. Applicable law and standard of review
In dependency proceedings, DCFS must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject of the section 300 petition comes under the juvenile court's jurisdiction. (§ 355, subd. (a); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 248.) "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we look to the entire record for substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order even if there is other evidence supporting a contrary finding. [Citations.]" (In re A.M. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1387-1388.) On appeal, the parent (or, as in this case, legal guardian) has the burden of showing that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Section 360, subdivision (b), provides: "If the court finds that the child is a person described by Section 300, it may, without adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court, order that services be provided to keep the family together and place the child and the child's . . . guardian under the supervision of the social worker for a time period consistent with Section 301." (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.514(e)(1).)
"'If the court agrees to or orders a program of informal supervision [pursuant to section 360, subdivision (b)], it does not dismiss the dependency petition or otherwise set it aside. The true finding of jurisdiction remains. It is only the dispositional alternative of declaring the child a dependent that is not made. This is because if the family is unwilling or unable to cooperate with the services being provided, the social worker may institute proceedings pursuant to [section] 332 (petition to commence proceedings), alleging that a previous petition has been sustained and that informal supervision was ineffective. [Citation.]'" (In re Adam D. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1260.) "[T]he order for informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b) must be seen as tantamount to a disposition. Any other result would insulate the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding from review in that, if [the legal guardian] cooperate[s] with [DCFS], it is unlikely to petition for reinstatement . . . . [¶] . . . Should [the legal guardian] cooperate with [DCFS] or should [DCFS] decide not to seek formal supervision, [the legal guardian] will be denied review of the jurisdictional findings that now form the basis of the order for informal supervision." (Id. at pp. 1260-1261.)
Section 300, subdivision (j), provides, in relevant part: "A child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] The 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."
B. Analysis
Ample evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that A.H. falls within the scope of section 300, subdivision (j). In this case, 26-year-old Michael sexually abused 13-year-old G.H., A.H.'s sister. A.H. even witnessed G.H. performing oral copulation on Michael. And, there is evidence that Michael attempted to groom A.H. for sexual abuse. She described how he would kiss her on the lips or put his hand close to her vagina.
A.H. told the forensic interviewer that she was sad and scared over everything that had happened. She was sad that Michael had abused her sister, and she was scared that he would go to her home or school.
In urging us to reverse, Lena argues that "there was no showing that she reasonably should have known that Michael was sexually abusing [G.H. and A.H.] and as a result failed to protect them." The juvenile court found otherwise and had ample reason to do so. Lena had been sexually abused by her brother (and father of G.H. and A.H.) when she was a child. And Lena knew that G.H. had been sexually abused by that same man. Given the history of sexual abuse within the family, Lena should have been extra diligent with the children.
Lena further argues that there is insufficient evidence that A.H. was at risk of harm in her care. Again, we disagree. A.H. appeared guarded and cautious when the social worker would speak to her. A.H. wanted to live with Lena, and because she wanted to live with Lena, there was a risk that she would not report anything inappropriate, such as Michael returning to the home. At the inception of the case, A.H. reported that she did not see any inappropriate interaction between Michael and G.H., even though she had seen them engage in oral copulation. In addition, she initially stated that no one had ever touched her inappropriately, but later told the forensic interviewer that Michael had touched her inappropriately and that his actions made her uncomfortable. It follows that the juvenile court had ample reason to find that A.H. was at a substantial risk of harm.
To the extent Lena challenges the jurisdictional findings regarding A.H.'s mother and father, we conclude that she lacks standing to raise this objection. "A person does not have standing to urge errors on appeal that affect only the interests of others. [Citation.]" (In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 499.)
II. Disposition
Lena argues that the juvenile court erred in ordering informal supervision of A.H.
A. Moot
This issue is moot. As both parties point out, on April 30, 2019, the juvenile court ordered informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b), for six months. Six months from the disposition hearing fell on October 30, 2019, and has passed. There is no indication that DCFS refiled a petition or that the juvenile court extended the period of supervision beyond six months. Thus, this portion of Lena's appeal is dismissed. (City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 952, 958.)
B. Forfeiture
Even if the issue were not moot, Lena forfeited any objection to informal supervision. At the April 30, 2019, hearing, DCFS's counsel asked Lena whether she would be willing to sign a contract with DCFS to continue in counseling and allow DCFS to supervise the case. She replied that she would do "whatever the court want[ed her] to do." In other words, she implicitly agreed to continued DCFS supervision. It follows that her objection on appeal has been forfeited. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 ["a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court"].)
C. Applicable law and standard of review
For the sake of completeness, we turn to the merits of Lena's argument on appeal.
As set forth above, under section 360, subdivision (b), the juvenile court may, without adjudicating the child a dependent, order that services be provided to keep the family together under the informal supervision of DCFS. (§ 360, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.514(e)(1), 5.695(a)(2); In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 171.) "The court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accord with this discretion." (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) The dispositional order may not be reversed by the appellate court absent a clear abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) A court exceeds the limits of legal discretion if its determination was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (In re N.M., supra, at p. 171.) The appropriate test is whether the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
D. Analysis
There was serious sexual abuse in Lena's home. Michael sexually abused G.H. for an extended period of time. A.H. even witnessed one incident of sexual abuse. And, A.H. was sad and scared over what had occurred. She needed therapy.
While Lena had been proactive in obtaining services for A.H., A.H. had been in therapy only from September until December 2018. A.H. had not participated in individual therapy since December 2018. Lena testified that she was attempting to enroll her in counseling with a school-based therapist, but admitted that that counseling would only occur during the school year. Given that the disposition hearing was on April 30, 2019, it was likely that individual therapy would not begin until September 2019. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court was rightly concerned about A.H. getting back into therapy and finishing her programs. It follows that the juvenile court acted well-within the bounds of reason when it concluded that informal supervision was necessary under section 360, subdivision (b).
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdictional findings are affirmed. Lena's challenge to the juvenile court's order of six months of informal supervision is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, Acting P. J.
ASHMANN-GERST We concur: /s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ /s/_________, J.
HOFFSTADT