Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Juan T.
214 Cal. App. 4th 515
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Juan T. is the maternal grandfather and one of three guardians of Ricky T. (age 3).
- A.G. (12) and D.G. (9) are Juan T.’s stepgranddaughters who were abused by him; the alleged abuse occurred at home and at a mall where he worked as a vendor.
- A.G. reported repeated touching of breasts and vagina and attempted kissing; D.G. described multiple molestations over about a year.
- Ricky T. has autism and resides with Linda T. and Christina; a May 2009 probate order granted guardianship to Juan T., Linda T., and Christina.
- In September 2011, DCFS received a referral after security at the mall reported the abuse; Juan T. was detained and later pled no contest to related offenses.
- The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, finding Ricky T. is a dependent under §300(b) and (d) based on a presumption from §355.1(d) due to Juan T.’s conviction; Juan T. moved for monitored visitation and Ricky T. was placed with Linda T. and Christina with reunification services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §355.1(d) presumption applied properly | Juan T. argues no rebuttal evidence was offered to defeat the presumption. | Department contends the presumption shifted burden and was properly invoked by his conviction. | Presumption applied; Juan T. failed to rebut. |
| Whether the presumption was forfeited for lack of notice | Department forfeited by not giving notice under §355.1(a). | No forfeiture because §355.1(d) relies on conviction; notice less critical. | Not forfeited; failure to object at adjudication prevented appellate error. |
| Whether, absent the presumption, Ricky T. was at risk of harm | Juan T.’s abuse of A.G. shows risk to Ricky T. in home. | Male siblings of abused females are generally not at risk; Ricky T. is autistic and not directly touched. | Yes; evidence shows risk to Ricky T. and protection was proper without requiring presumption. |
| Whether abuse by a parent places siblings in the home at risk | Authority supports risk to siblings who remain in home following parental sexual abuse. | Existing authority does not extend to these factuals or to male children as siblings. | Court-approved; aberrant parental sexual behavior endangers siblings in the home. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Esmeralda B., 11 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (presumption under §355.1(d) supported dependency when guardian convicted of sexual abuse)
- In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (notice requirements; dependency presumptions under §355.1(a) contrasted)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (notice and reliance principles in dependency proceedings)
- In re Karen R., 95 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (sexual abuse by a parent places siblings at risk; presence and impact in home)
- In re P.A., 144 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (aberrant sexual behavior by a parent places the victim’s siblings at risk)
- In re Andy G., 183 Cal.App.4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (siblings in home at risk from parental sexual abuse; expansion of risk principle)