Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family v. Jose C.
204 Cal. App. 4th 1317
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Consolidated juvenile dependency appeal arising from sexual abuse allegations by Jose C., Sr. against Kimberly A., and resultant risk findings for several children in the family home.
- Dependency court sustained various allegations under WIC 300(b), (d), and (j) as to Kimberly A., Jacqueline A., and Yesenia C.; in a related petition, it sustained for Ana C., Jose C., Jr., and Eric C.
- Jose C., Sr. challenges the court’s credibility and competence findings, and argues lack of substantial evidence to support risk of harm to non-kin children; disposition affirmed for some and reversed as to Ana C.
- DCFS investigation began June 9, 2010, following a school report alleging sexual abuse by Jose C., Sr. of Kimberly A.; multiple interviews showed inconsistent denials.
- Kimberly A., a moderately mentally retarded student, testified at adjudication; the court found her competent to testify and credible, leading to adjudication and disposition against Jose C., Sr.
- Dispositional appeal: the reviewing court affirms as to Jose C., Jr., Eric C., Kimberly A., Jacqueline A., Yesenia C., and reverses as to Ana C.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence of Kimberly A. to testify | Jose C., Sr. argues Kimberly was not competent | Court properly qualified Kimberly to testify after questioning | No abuse of discretion; Kimberly competent to testify |
| Credibility of Kimberly A.'s testimony | Credibility undermined; inconsistent statements | Trial court properly assessed credibility | Court could reasonably credit Kimberly's testimony; not reversible on credibility alone |
| Jurisdiction over Jose and Eric under 300(b) and (d) | Evidence supports risk to Jose and Eric from mother's failure to protect | No substantial evidence under 300(b) for these related children; (d) not shown | Error under 300(b) for Jose/Eric; no substantial evidence under (d) to support jurisdiction for Jose/Eric; Yesenia only implicated by age/relations; Ana excluded |
| Sibling abuse risk analysis | Conduct with Kimberly shows risk to siblings in home | No adequate inference that other children at risk | Evidence supports risk to Jacqueline A. and Yesenia C.; Ana C. lacking substantial evidence |
| Effect of counsel on claims of ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to object to competency/credibility | Counsel acted reasonably; no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance; record supports trial strategy |
| Yesenia and Ana jurisdiction | Yesenia at risk due to father’s conduct; Ana previously living apart | Yesenia lacks sufficient evidence; Ana not at risk | Yesenia affirmed on risk; Ana C. reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.C., 139 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (forfeiture rule on competency objections)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (legal-guardian visitation issue; not directly applicable here)
- People v. Montoya, 149 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (trustworthiness of witness competency rulings; abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (evidence required to support risk to male sibling when female sibling abused)
- In re Karen R., 95 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (extreme sexual aberrancy as basis for cross-sibling risk of abuse)