In re Olivia
R.
Filed 12/31/12 In re Olivia
R. CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 ONE
In re OLIVIA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
B242428
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK90370)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
MANUEL R.,
Defendant
and Appellant.
APPEAL from a orders of the Superior Court of
County, Timothy R. Saito, Judge. Dismissed.
Manuel R., in pro. per.; and
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
——————————
The
father of a minor child appeals from a juvenile court’s disposition order. We appointed counsel for the father. Father’s counsel filed an opening brief
informing us he was unable to find an arguable issues, and requested that we
exercise our discretion to permit father personally to submit a supplemental
brief, which we did. Neither father’s supplemental
brief, nor our independent review of
the record have revealed any arguable issues.
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Manuel R. (father) appeals from
orders entered at the jurisdiction and disposition hearings in this case
upholding allegations of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition
filed in October 2011. The subject of
that petition is Olivia R., (born in March 2006), who is the daughter of father
and Mary E. (mother). Mother and father
are separated but shared legal and physical custody of Olivia, although Olivia
lived primarily with mother, and father had substantial visitation rights. Mother and father each had children by prior
relationships, two of whom played a role here.
One of those children was father’s then 16-year-old son Robert, and the
other was mother’s adult daughter Samantha.
The petition alleged that Robert
made numerous inappropriate sexual remarks to or advances toward Olivia. Olivia complained about the comments and
advances to father, who dismissed them and accused her of lying. Olivia told her mother about Robert’s
inappropriate behavior. Mother contacted
the police immediately, and these proceedings ensued soon thereafter.
When contacted by respondent
(DCFS), father said he and mother were involved in a bitter custody dispute,
and that mother had put Olivia up to making the accusations against
Robert. He said Robert had been
investigated for possible sexual abuse of Olivia two years earlier (for
allegedly rubbing Olivia too hard on her vagina while bathing her), and noted
those allegations had been deemed unfounded.
In an interview in early October
2011, Olivia recounted several instances during which Robert had not touched
her, but had urged her to touch herself in an inappropriate manner. He had gestured to his genitalia
demonstrating how she should manipulate her own genitalia. Olivia consistently refused to do what Robert
told her to do.
As a result of this investigation, a
petition was filed alleging that Robert made sexually explicit comments to his
sister, that he had touched her, and that father knew about these events but
did nothing to prevent them. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (d).)
Olivia was detained and released to mother’s care; father was given
monitored visitation.
The jurisdiction hearing began in mid-March
2012. During an in
three occasions, Robert told her to touch herself in ways that made her
uncomfortable. On the first occasion,
she had been playing with the family’s dog when Robert told her how she could
touch herself. She refused to do so in
the way he described, and Robert demonstrated the touching by rubbing his
genitals through his clothes. Olivia
told father about the incident but he said he did not believe her. The second time Olivia was in the bathroom
when Robert came in and told her to touch herself; she told him to leave her
alone. Again, Olivia told father, who
said he did not believe her. The third
time was at a park. Robert followed Olivia
into a restroom and told her to touch herself and also to touch him. She refused.
Again Olivia told father. Again
father told Olivia he did not believe her.
Olivia also testified that Robert touched her chest four times; she did
not like it. Olivia denied having said
that Samantha prodded her to lie about Robert.
On April 5, 2012, DCFS filed a report regarding a monitored
visit between father and Olivia on February 6, 2012.
The visitation monitor observed the following: (1) father and Olivia were engaged in
routine activities when Olivia told father that Samantha sometimes made her
watch “scary and nasty†movies. Father
told Olivia she did not have to watch those movies if she did not want to, but
Olivia said Samantha would hit her with a belt if she didn’t. Olivia then told the monitor her “‘“sister
made [her] say those things about Robertâ€â€™â€ and touched her upper chest with
her hands. Concerned about Olivia’s
comments, the monitor asked a social worker to speak to Olivia, who repeated
that Samantha had told her to say those things about Robert. Olivia also repeated an allegation that
Samantha had hit her with a belt and/or an open hand. At that visit, father also told the social
worker he wanted to discuss Olivia’s claim that Samantha encouraged Olivia to
claim Robert touched her or urged her to touch herself in an inappropriate
manner, but the social worker refused to address that issue which had “already
been substantiated.†Olivia was checked
for signs of bruising, but none were found.
The monitor from the February 6
visit between Olivia and father was the first witness to testify when the
jurisdictional hearing resumed on April 14, 2012.
The monitor testified that Olivia had, on multiple occasions, said that
Samantha encouraged her to levy allegations against Robert. The monitor contacted the social workers about
what Olivia told, but the social workers said no additional investigations
would be done undertaken because the allegations against Robert had been
substantiated. The monitor believed that
the supervising social worker was most interested in Olivia’s allegation that
Samantha had struck her, not in any recantation. The monitor was unsure whether Olivia meant
Samantha had told her to make up allegations against Robert, or whether she
merely encouraged Olivia to tell the truth.
Samantha denied telling Olivia to
lie about Robert touching her, and claimed she had had a decent relationship
with Robert prior to Olivia’s disclosure of these events. Samantha also denied hitting Olivia with a
belt. She did talk to Olivia about the
allegations in February, and told her sister to tell the truth.
Anna M., Olivia’s maternal aunt,
spoke with mother and Olivia the day Olivia first disclosed the allegations
against Robert. They had come over to
Anna’s house. Mother had been crying and
Olivia told Anna what happened. Anna
stressed to Olivia the importance of being truthful as many people could get
into trouble. Olivia said, “Auntie, I’m
not lying to you.†Olivia also said she
told father what Robert did, but he did not believe her. Mother had taken Olivia to the police station
to make a report and returned several hours later, after midnight. When they returned to Anna’s house, they
called father who was upset and said it was all lies. Olivia spoke to father on the phone. Anna heard father tell Olivia to stop lying
or he would not take her to Sea World.
Father acknowledged receiving a call
from mother about Olivia’s accusations against Robert. At first he thought the call was about the
incident DCFS had deemed unfounded the previous year, in which Robert was
alleged to have molested Olivia while bathing her. Father believed that “incident†and the
current one were part of a campaign by mother to gain an advantage in the
parents’ custody dispute. He
acknowledged he was upset when he received a call accusing Robert of
inappropriate behavior, but denied calling Olivia a liar. He believed Olivia was coached to levy the
accusations, and said she had told him just before this trial began that she
made the story up.
Robert denied ever touching Olivia
in an inappropriate manner, or ever having been alone with her at father’s
house. He never told Olivia it was okay
to touch herself in a sexual manner, nor did he demonstrate on himself how she
should do so.
At the conclusion of the hearing the
court found the allegations of the petition true. The court found Olivia a more credible
witness than her half-brother Robert, whom the court said had been “slightly
lacking†in his testimony.
The disposition hearing was
conducted on June 21, 2012. DCFS
recommended the matter be closed with exit orders granting sole physical
custody to mother, joint legal custody to both parents and monitored visits for
father. The court agreed with father’s
counsel that there was a need for joint therapy, which it ordered and set the
matter for further review. Father filed
a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed appellate
an opening brief, pursuant to In re
Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, informing us that he had found no
arguable issues, and requesting us to exercise our discretion to permit father
to submit his own brief. On September
11, 2012, we notified father that he had 30 days with which to submit a letter
or brief stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Father submitted a supplemental brief in pro.
per., on October 9, 2012. (
We have reviewed father’s
supplemental brief. Out of an abundance
of caution, we have also independently reviewed the record. Our review has confirmed what father’s
counsel determined, i.e., nothing in the record indicates that an arguable
issue exists for our consideration, and nothing in father’s supplemental brief
changes that result.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
JOHNSON,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO, P. J.
CHANEY, J.
