Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. R.G.
208 Cal. App. 4th 1562
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother and Father appeal juvenile court jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to minors D.G. (16) and L.C. (11) arising from Father's attempts to solicit sex from D.G.
- 2007 petition: Father sexually abused D.G. by belt and sexual solicitation; Mother failed to protect; DCFS investigated and case closed with restraining order.
- 2011 petition: DCFS alleges D.G. sexually abused and L.C. at risk; minors placed with maternal aunt; Father no longer resides in the home.
- Adjudication: D.G. testified Father offered money for sex (including $500) on multiple occasions; Mother inconsistently believed or denied; court found Father solicited sex and Mother failed to protect.
- Dispositional: court removed Father from home due to ongoing risk and lack of reasonable protective measures; orders included monitored visitation for Father with L.C. and no contact with D.G.
- Affirmative judgment: substantial evidence supports jurisdiction and removal, given Father's persistent sexual solicitation and Mother's denial despite youth reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's solicitation of sex from D.G. constitutes abuse under 300(d). | Mother/Father contend no abuse under 300(d). | Father argues solicitation alone is not abuse. | Solicitation constitutes abuse under 300(d) as defined by 11165.1 and 647.6. |
| Whether Mother's denial/place of risk supports jurisdiction under 300(b)/(j). | Mother denied abuse and failed to protect; risk to both children remains. | Mother's conduct does not create risk. | Yes; Mother's denial and ongoing exposure create substantial risk to D.G. and L.C. |
| Whether removal from the home was supported by substantial evidence under 361(c). | Removal necessary to protect children; no lesser protective means feasible. | Less restrictive options available; removal unwarranted. | Removal supported; substantial danger and no reasonable alternatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carskaddon, 49 Cal.2d 423 (Cal. 1957) (defines 647.6/annoying or molesting as protecting children from sexual offenders)
- People v. La Fontaine, 79 Cal.App.3d 176 (Cal. App. 1978) (no touching required for 647.6; words may suffice)
- People v. Lopez, 19 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 1998) (touching not required for molestation; emphasizes protection of children)
- People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 786 (Cal. 1995) (discussion of 647.6/molestation standards)
- In re Katrina W., 31 Cal.App.4th 441 (Cal. App. 1994) (substantial evidence supports jurisdiction based on sibling risk)
- In re Summer H., 139 Cal.App.4th 1315 (Cal. App. 2006) (dispositional review and standard of review for removal)