Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Alejandro S.
139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- DCFS investigated after E.G., a 13-year-old, alleged appellant touched her inappropriately.
- Appellant denied the allegations; Alexis and Alejandro, ages 9 and 7, initially denied abuse or knowledge of abuse.
- E.G. reported incidents occurred beginning May–October 2010, with touching of breasts and bottom and kissing on the mouth.
- Mother, who had been abused herself, protected E.G. by preventing appellant from living with them; DCFS allowed Mother to keep the children at home if appellant moved out.
- Jurisdictional hearing found true that appellant sexually abused E.G. multiple times and that the family environment endangered the children; court found risk to the boys emotionally, not necessarily physically.
- Dispositional hearing detained the boys from appellant’s custody and limited visitation to monitored arrangements; this appeal challenges that portion of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence of risk to the boys to justify detention | S. argued the evidence showed no risk to Alexis/Alejandro | Appellant contends prior conduct with E.G. supports risk | No; evidence failed to show substantial risk to the boys. |
| Whether emotional risk alone justifies removal under §361(c)(4) | DCFS and minors’ counsel asserted emotional risk justifies detainment | Appellant argues no current or future risk to boys; no contact with E.G. | Not supported; no basis to remove boys based solely on emotional risk. |
| Whether prior acts with E.G. can support the same’s risk to siblings when abuser lives apart | DCFS suggested ongoing risk to siblings from abuse within home | Absence of abuse since relocation negates risk | Insufficient evidence of risk to siblings given relocation and compliance with orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (clear and convincing standard; abuse risk considerations in removal decisions)
- In re Rubisela E., 85 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (reversal where no demonstrated substantial risk to brothers)
- In re P.A., 144 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (brotherly risk in abuse context; distinguishing scenarios)
- In re Andy G., 183 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse context involving a male victim and proximity to child)
- Maria R., 185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (limits on expanding ‘sexual abuse’ to collateral emotional harm without scientific basis)
- Karen R., 95 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (observed abuse context; siblings’ risk considerations)