L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Justin R. (In re S.R.)
| Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | B300214 |
| Citation | 48 Cal.App.5th 204,261 Cal.Rptr.3d 378 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE S.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Justin R., Defendant and Appellant. |
Cristina Gabrielidis, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) initiated juvenile dependency proceedings concerning ten-year-old S.R. based on her father’s (Justin R.’s) possession of child pornography in the child’s home. The evidence presented below shows that several of the images Justin R. possessed depicted young females around S.R.’s age engaged in various sexual acts, and that one of the images may have depicted a father having sexual relations with his prepubescent daughter. After the juvenile dependency proceedings began, Justin R. suffered a felony conviction arising from his possession of the child pornography. The juvenile court later sustained the dependency petition’s jurisdictional allegations against Justin R., removed S.R. from his physical custody, and authorized Justin R. to have monitored visits with S.R.
Although Justin R. does not challenge the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction on appeal, he does contest the dispositional ruling removing S.R. from his custody.1 Specifically, he argues that his mere possession of child pornography does not demonstrate that he poses a substantial risk of harm to his daughter.
We disagree. The Supreme Court has held that " ‘even ... a low degree of probability’ " can give rise to a substantial risk if " ‘the magnitude of the harm is potentially great.’ " (See In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 778, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 297, 299 P.3d 1254 ( I.J. ).) Here, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the dispositional order (as we must), we conclude there is substantial evidence of risk of great harm to S.R. that Justin R. will sexually abuse his daughter if he is provided unfettered access to her. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order.
We summarize only those facts that are relevant to the instant appeal.
On April 12, 2019, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition concerning ten-year-old S.R. The petition alleged that jurisdiction was proper under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (d),2 and asserted two counts against Justin R. Counts b-1 and d-1 of the petition each alleged the following: S.R.’s mother (mother) was not named as an offending parent under the petition.
On April 12, 2019, DCFS also filed a detention report and an addendum report.
The detention report asserts that on April 10, 2019, police arrested Justin R. at his, mother’s, and S.R.’s family home after Justin R. admitted to officers that certain child pornography found on a computer had belonged to him.3 Later that day, DCFS interviewed mother, S.R., and Justin R.
Mother stated that she and Justin R. have been married for 12 years and S.R. is their only child. Mother reported she and Justin R. "are together only for [S.R.]"; she claimed that Justin R. sleeps on the couch downstairs and the two of them "no longer share a sexual relationship because he is impotent." Mother expressed her concern that Justin R. is the family’s only source of income because she does not work. Nonetheless, she insisted that Justin R. "will not be coming back to her home, even if he [is] bail[ed] out of jail." She "denied any concerns .... that [Justin R.] has sexually abused [S.R.]." Mother also "denied having any knowledge of what [Justin R.] was searching [for] on his computer."
During her interview with DCFS, S.R. "denied all types of abuse and neglect." In addition, she "denied [that anyone had] sexually abus[ed] her, or show[ed] her nude photographs of others, expos[ed] themselves to her, or t[ook] nude/explicit photographs of herself." "[S.R.] stated that if this were to happen[,] she would tell ... mother or [Justin R.]"
Justin R. told DCFS that "he never admitted to [law enforcement] that he watches child porn[ography] and had child porn[ography] on his electronics." He stated he watched pornography "once every day," but claimed that he " ‘watch[es] regular porn.’ " Justin R. represented that, and "he would never watch porn on [S.R.’s] electronic devices." "[He] gave [DCFS] verbal consent to detain the child from [him]" and "agreed not to return to the home."
Shortly after DCFS interviewed Justin R., mother reported to DCFS that she and Justin R.’s sister intended to bail Justin R. out of jail. Mother told DCFS that Justin R. was "going to get all of his belongings and move in with [his sister]."
In the addendum report, DCFS recommended that S.R. remain in mother’s home, and that Justin R. receive monitored visits with the child. DCFS also reported that "[Justin R.] was released from jail on bond on 04/10/2019."
On April 15, 2019, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. At the hearing, Justin R. entered a general denial to the petition. The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining S.R. from Justin R., and ordered that S.R. be released to mother and receive monitored visits from Justin R. Additionally, the juvenile court barred Justin R. from living in mother’s and S.R.’s home.
On May 9, 2019, DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report. The report states that the police seized two devices from the family’s home: a laptop computer and an external hard drive. Mother and Justin R. each told DCFS that S.R. did not have access to either of these devices. Also, "mother reported that she does not plan on obtaining a divorce from [Justin R., and] indicated that she would like to resume their living arrangement while [Justin R.] receives treatment/services."
On May 17, 2019, DCFS filed the first amended petition. The pleading amended counts b-1 and d-1 to allege that Justin R. possessed child pornography on not only an external hard drive, but also on a laptop computer. Specifically, each count avers: The first amended petition did not otherwise differ from the original petition in any material respect.
On May 20, 2019, Justin R. entered a denial to the first amended petition.4
On June 4, 2019, DCFS filed a last minute information, along with certain police reports, including (inter alia) an arrest report, a follow-up investigation report, and a forensic examination report.
According to the arrest report, Tumblr5 reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that in November 2018, one of Tumblr’s users utilized its server to upload certain videos depicting child pornography; the NCMEC forwarded that report to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).6 One of the videos shows a nude girl, approximately seven years of age, lying on a bed; kneeling in front of her is a nude adult male who rubs his erect penis on the young girl’s vagina and begins to ejaculate on her stomach. The second video shows a young child lying face down on a bed as an adult male "ha[s] intercourse with or sodomize[s] the child from behind" and the child moans and cries. The LAPD’s investigation revealed that the Internet Protocol Address associated with the user who uploaded the videos belonged to Justin R.
On April 10, 2019, the LAPD executed a search warrant at Justin R.’s residence. During the search, the LAPD retrieved a laptop computer and an external hard drive; Justin R. admitted that both of those devices belonged to him. The LAPD arrested Justin R. and seized the laptop and the hard drive.
The follow-up investigation report indicates that the seized external hard drive contained images showing female children under 12 years of age posing nude and engaging in various sexual acts with adults. According to the follow-up report, Justin R. told LAPD officers on April 10, 2019 that he has never had a Tumblr account and that "[o]utside of his prior employment with the Los Angeles County Police, ... he has not seen [c]hild [p]ornography."
The forensic examination report states that police ultimately found "approximately six hundred fourteen images and fifty-four videos of [c]hild [p]ornography" on Justin R.’s external hard drive. Furthermore, the report indicates that "[o]ver one thousand downloads between the dates of May[ ] 2010 through March[ ] 2014 were discovered on" the external hard drive, the "majority" of which had "file names indicative of [child pornography]," inc...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. A.T. (In re J.S.)
...of the trial court.’ " " ( In re I.J., supra , 56 Cal.4th at p. 773, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 297, 299 P.3d 1254 ; accord, In re S.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 204, 219, 261 Cal.Rptr.3d 378.)"The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the......
-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Elliot T. (In re A.T.)
...judgment, butmerely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.'"" (Ibid; accord, In re S.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 204, 219.) "'Substantial evidence is evidence that is "reasonable, credible, and of solid value"; such that a reasonable trier of fact c......
-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. George D.L. (In re James D.L.)
...there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court."'" (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; accord, In re S.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 204, 219.) "When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate c......
-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. George D.L. (In re James D.L.)
...there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court."'" (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; accord, In re S.R. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 204, 219.) "When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate c......