In re Ricardo J

^{Filed 5/11/06 In re Ricardo J. CA2/2}

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David Doi, Judge. Affirmed.

Deborah Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant I.J.

Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ricardo J.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Ricardo J. and I. J., father and mother of 14-year-old Ricardo, 12-year-old Eddie, and six-year-old Estella, appeal from orders of the juvenile court declaring the children to be dependents of the court and removing them from mother's and father's custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 360.)[1] We affirm.

CONTENTIONS

Father contends that insufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that he sexually molested Estella and that the court's order requiring him to attend sexual abuse counseling for offenders should be stricken. Mother contends that insufficient evidence supported the trial court's findings that (1) the children were at risk of physical harm from domestic violence or that mother failed to protect them from physical harm; and (2) mother knew or should have known of the sexual molestation or that mother failed to protect them against sexual molestation. Mother further contends that insufficient evidence supported the trial court's order that she undergo random drug testing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 25, 2005, mother took Ricardo, Eddie, and Estella to a police station to report suspected sexual abuse by their father. Mother was living with the three children apart from father at the time, and had recently filed for divorce. Parents had a history of domestic violence, and father had been arrested for domestic violence a week earlier. In February 2005, mother had obtained a restraining order against father. While mother indicated that she was able to keep her daughter away from father, her sons had seen father against her will.

1. The section 300 petition and initial detention hearing

On March 30, 2005, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of all three children. The petition set forth the following allegations, based upon interviews conducted by the police and a social worker: Estella, then five years old, said her father had touched her private parts and she had never told anyone until after her parents separated. Estella said father had unzipped his pants and rubbed himself between her legs for about one minute, then left. She recalled the incident happened around â€