In re A.S

Filed 3/1/06 In re A.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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.

Emily Stevens, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

_________________________

Enrique C. (father) appeals the orders entered by the juvenile court at the dispositional hearing for his daughters, D.C. and L.C. In his appellate briefs, father challenges the juvenile court's findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivisions (c) and (d)[1] that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal of D.C. and L.C. from their home and that they cannot be protected without being removed from his physical custody. According to father, those findings should be stricken because they were set forth in a minute order but never articulated at the hearing, they were inconsistent with the home-of-mother order, and they were not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

FACTS

Background

Juana A. had A.S. in September 1996 and An. S. in August 1997 with Jose S. Subsequently, mother had D.C. in January 2000 and L.C. in August 2001 with father. On March 30, 2005, when D.C. was five years old, she said her vagina was hurting and told mother. When mother asked what happened, D.C. said father put his finger in her vagina.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) investigated the possibility that father sexually abused D.C. She told a police officer that father touched her privates. D.C. was examined for sexual abuse by nurse practitioner Janie Salazar (Salazar) and explained what happened. Although the examination was inconclusive, Salazar noted a tissue fold at the 6:00 o'clock position on D.C.'s anus and recommended that D.C. be reevaluated in two weeks.

Father was arrested.

D.C. told mother that the story about father's abuse was a lie. This confused mother and she did not know what to believe. Father was released after two days in jail and was never prosecuted. He denied any wrongdoing. His theory was that mother instigated the story because the two of them have a history of domestic violence together.

After father moved back in with mother, she contacted a social worker and stated that she did not feel she could protect A.S., An.S., D.C. and L.C. (collectively the minors) without intervention by the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). A child safety conference ensued and father agreed to attend sexual abuse counseling, individual therapy, and family therapy. The conclusion of the conference participants was that the minors would remain with mother and father's visits with the minors would be monitored.[2]

The petition

The Department filed a petition alleging, in part, that the minors came within the meaning of section 300 because father engaged in violent altercations with mother and sexually abused D.C.

The first hearing

On May 25, 2005, the parties agreed to the dismissal of the counts in the section 300 petition pertaining to domestic violence because those issues were remote in time and no longer posed a risk.

Salazar testified that when she asked D.C. what happened to her, D.C. said â€