In re Galilea M. CA2/7 ( 2023 )

Filed 7/12/23 In re Galilea M. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re GALILEA M., a Person B320333
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
22CCJP00554B)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PATRICIA C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.
Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
___________________
Patricia C., the mother of now-15-year-old Galilea M.,
appeals the juvenile court’s March 30, 2022 disposition order
removing Galilea from her custody after the court sustained a
petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally),
(b)(1) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse) and (j) (abuse of
sibling),1 based on its findings that William M., Galilea’s father,
had sexually abused Galilea’s now-18-year-old half-sister,
Ruby G., starting when Ruby was three years old; William
physically abused Ruby, Galilea and their older sibling Rene C.
when Rene was a child; William and Patricia had a history of
engaging in violent altercations in the children’s presence; and
Patricia failed to protect her children from the ongoing sexual
and physical abuse. Without questioning the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction findings or the evidentiary bases for them, Patricia
contends reasonable means existed to protect Galilea without
removing her from her mother’s custody. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
With the dependency petition filed February 14, 2022 the
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
submitted a lengthy detention report detailing 17-year-old Ruby’s
accusations that Patricia’s boyfriend William (Galilea’s father)
had sexually abused her over a lengthy period. In addition, Ruby
1 Statutory references are to this code.
2
described William’s physical abuse, including an incident that
Galilea had witnessed. Ruby had not told Patricia about the
sexual abuse because she did not think her mother, who idolized
William, would believe her.
The detention report also summarized the social worker’s
interview with Rene, with whom Ruby and Galilea were then
living (with Patricia’s agreement). According to Rene, when they
all lived in Patricia’s home, William physically abused Rene and
Patricia, but Rene intervened to prevent William from physically
abusing Ruby and Galilea. For her part, Galilea reported that
William had always been physically abusive toward her and
Ruby, as well as to Patricia and Rene.
When the social worker interviewed Patricia, Patricia
indicated a willingness to protect Ruby if she insisted the
allegations of sexual abuse were true, but expressed doubt as to
Ruby’s truthfulness, explaining that Ruby had a tendency of
lying and making a big deal of things. Patricia unequivocally
stated, “I just don’t believe this,” and suggested Ruby fabricated
the sexual abuse allegations so she could remain on her school’s
dance team notwithstanding her bad grades. Although Patricia
and William continued to live in the family residence, Patricia
said they were no longer in a relationship and he was sleeping in
a different room from her.
The dependency petition filed February 14, 2022 pursuant
to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (j), described
William’s sexual abuse of Ruby; his physical abuse of Ruby,
Galilea and Rene; William and Patricia’s history of domestic
violence; and Patricia’s failure to protect her children from
William. Two days later the court ordered Ruby and Galilea
detained from Patricia’s care.
3
The jurisdiction/disposition report, filed March 9, 2022,
added more detail of William’s explosive anger and violence and
included Patricia’s insistence during a further interview that
William never hit Ruby or Galilea and was “very kind and loving”
toward the children. Patricia again accused Ruby of lying about
William’s sexual abuse. Patricia had moved out of the home but
admitted she and William were together and explained she had
moved only because her attorney told her it did not look good for
her to continue living with William while the allegations of abuse
were pending, not because she believed William had done
anything wrong.
At the jurisdiction hearing the court sustained an amended
petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (d) and
(j), finding true the allegations (among others) that William on
numerous occasions sexually abused Ruby between the time she
was three and 10 years old, including forcibly raping her, and
that Patricia failed to take action to protect the child when she
knew, or reasonably should have known, of the sexual abuse. In
addition, the court found true the allegations that William
physically abused Ruby and Galilea by slapping and spitting in
Ruby’s face and choking Galilea and Patricia failed to protect her
children when she knew, or reasonably should have known, they
were being physically abused. The court also sustained the
allegation that Patricia and William had a history of engaging in
violent altercations in the children’s presence.
Immediately turning to disposition, the court declared
Ruby and Galilea dependent children of the court and ordered
both children removed from parental custody and suitably placed,
finding by clear and convincing evidence “there’s no reasonable
means yet by which to protect them without removing them from
4
their parents’ care.” Rejecting Patricia’s counsel’s request for a
home-of-parent order, the juvenile court stated, “I cannot place
the kids back with mom at this point in time, even though she
supposedly has separated from [William]. She has yet to
acknowledge that these events have occurred and is blaming the
child or children for why they are here before the court.”
The court ordered family reunification services for Patricia
and William, directing Patricia to participate in parenting
education, sexual abuse awareness counsel, individual counseling
and a support group for victims of domestic violence. Patricia
was restricted to monitored visitation in a neutral setting for six
hours per week (with Department discretion to liberalize).
Patricia filed a timely notice of appeal. In her briefing
Patricia does not challenge any of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction
findings and, because Ruby turned 18 years old in October 2022,
argues only that the court erred in removing Galilea from her
care, contending reasonable means existed to protect the child
without removal.
DISCUSSION
1. Governing Law and Standard of Review
The paramount purpose of the dependency laws “is to
provide maximum safety and protection for children who are
currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being
neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection,
and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk
of that harm.” (§ 300.2, subd. (a); see In re Cole L. (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 591, 601; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283,
289.)
After a dependency petition has been sustained pursuant to
section 300, the court may order a child removed from the
5
physical custody of a parent based on its finding, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the child would be at substantial risk of
physical or emotional harm if the parent were to live with the
child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can
be protected without removal. (§ 361, subds. (c)(1) [parent with
whom the child resided at the time the petition was initiated],
(d) [parent with whom the child did not reside at the time the
petition was initiated];2 In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126,
135; see In re Anthony Q. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 336, 347.) “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.” (In re D.B. (2018)
26 Cal.App.5th 320, 328; accord, In re T.V., at pp. 135-136; In re
T.W. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)
Because an order for removal under section 361,
subdivisions (c) and (d), must be based on clear and convincing
evidence, we “must determine whether the record, viewed as a
whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable
trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability
demanded by this standard of proof.” (Conservatorship of O.B.
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005; see In re Nathan E. (2021)
61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123 [“[i]n reviewing for substantial evidence
to support a dispositional order removing a child, we ‘keep[] in
mind that the [juvenile] court was required to make its order
based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence’”];
see generally In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 [“‘In reviewing
2 Both Patricia’s and the Department’s counsel on appeal cite
section 361, subdivision (c)(1), as the governing provision.
However, Galilea was residing with her half-sibling Rene when
the petition was filed in February 2022, not with Patricia.
6
a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
jurisdictional findings and disposition, we determine if
substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports
them. “In making this determination, we draw all reasonable
inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of
the dependency court; we review the record in the light most
favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues
of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.”
[Citation.] “We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise
independent judgment, but merely determine if there are
sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court”’”].)
The “appellant has the burden to demonstrate there is no
evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the
findings or orders.” (In re D.B., supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at pp. 328-
329.)
2. Substantial Evidence Supports the Removal Order
Emphasizing that she had agreed to follow the court’s
orders that she participate in sexual abuse awareness counseling
and attend a support group for victims of domestic violence, as
well as that she had moved away from William, Patricia argues
her cooperation with the Department and the court demonstrated
there were reasonable means to protect Galilea without removing
her from her mother’s custody. Yet, as the court found at
disposition, Patricia remained insistent that the sexual and
physical abuse suffered by Ruby and Galilea had never occurred
and confessed she remained in a relationship with their abuser,
whom she had described as a “very kind and loving” man and
with whom she had a significant history of domestic violence.
Patricia’s steadfast denial of the abuse of her children and
her lack of insight into her role in allowing it to continue amply
7
justified the court’s decision to remove Galilea from Patricia’s
custody, at least until she made progress in the court-ordered
programs identified. (See In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944,
967 [“‘the juvenile court must determine whether a child will be
in substantial danger if permitted to remain in the parent’s
physical custody, considering not only the parent’s past conduct,
but also current circumstances, and the parent’s response to the
conditions that gave rise to juvenile court intervention’”]; In re
I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 520 [same]; In re D.B., supra,
26 Cal.App.5th at p. 332 [same]; see also In re A.F., supra,
3 Cal.App.5th at p. 293 [“[i]n light of mother’s failure to recognize
the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no
reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the
minor remain in her home”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012)
203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne cannot correct a problem one
fails to acknowledge”].) Given Patricia’s history with William
and her ongoing relationship with him, the juvenile court
reasonably determined that unannounced home visits by the
Department’s social workers or no-contact protective orders
would not adequately protect Galilea and there were no other
reasonable measures by which the child could safely remain in
Patricia’s custody.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s March 30, 2022 disposition order is
affirmed.
PERLUSS, P. J.
We concur:
SEGAL, J. FEUER, J.
8