Filed 10/31/17 In re H.R. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


In re H.G.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
F.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A150327

(Alameda County
Super. Ct. No. 0J15-025553)


This is an appeal in a juvenile dependency matter involving minor H.G.R. Minor’s step-father, F.G., challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s order of December 1, 2016, permanently restraining him from contact with minor. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2015, a petition was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging that minor, age 11, came within subdivision (b) (failure to protect), subdivision (d) (sexual abuse), and subdivision (g) (inability or unwillingness to provide support). Specifically, this petition alleged that minor had disclosed in a CALICO interview that step-father had, several times since minor was just 4 years old, locked her in her bedroom and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and anus while restraining her on the bed, and that mother had failed to protect her from this abuse. The petition further alleged that mother had continued to fail to protect minor by permitting step-father to have unsupervised access to her despite her awareness of his sexual abuse and, in fact, had let minor move with step-father to California in March 2015 while the rest of the family, including minor’s three half-siblings and mother, remained in Honduras.
On September 14, 2015, the agency filed a jurisdiction/disposition report noting that a report of sexual abuse had been filed in September 2015 based on the CALICO interview with minor. In this interview, minor described in detail several instances of sexual abuse by step-father, all of which occurred in Honduras during a six- or seven-year period, starting when she was about 4 years old. Among other details, minor reported that “he would always lock me in a room to do that,” “would grab [her] hands with his hands” so she “couldn’t move,” and would then put “his thing in [her] thing.” Based upon this interview, minor was detained by the juvenile court on September 14, 2015.
An addendum report filed in anticipation of the December 15, 2015 hearing noted, among other things, that, according to minor’s foster parents, the maternal grandmother had made inappropriate comments to minor during phones calls (including telling minor she had “broken up their family”), and that a maternal aunt had put step-father on the phone in an effort to get minor to speak to him. Following this hearing, the juvenile court took jurisdiction over minor and found the allegations in the petition true.
Another addendum report was filed in anticipation of the February 4, 2016 disposition hearing. This report noted that mother, who had relocated to California with minor’s half-siblings, denied being aware of minor’s sexual abuse. Step-father was having visits weekly with minor’s three half-siblings supervised by her maternal uncle. The social worker had several concerns, including that minor had reported that the maternal uncle supervising visits with step-father had molested her in Honduras, and that mother was exhibiting poor judgment regarding her children’s safety and well-being.
Following this hearing, the juvenile court deemed minor a dependent and placed her out of the home, with mother to receive reunification services. In particular, the juvenile court found that minor had been sexually abused by a parent or guardian, that there were no reasonable alternative means to protect her aside from out-of-home placement, and that minor did not wish to return to the parent or guardian.
Six-month and 12-month status review/permanency planning hearings followed. Among other things, it was reported that visitation with family was causing anxiety for minor, in part because of the complicated relationship she had with parents and her half-siblings. Mother had advised the agency that step-father was listed as minor’s father on her birth certificate. Minor’s counsel, in turn, objected to step-father being declared minor’s presumed father.
In addition, it was noted at the 12-month status review hearing that step-father had been arrested for kidnapping in connection with an attempt to flee California with minor’s three half siblings. Step-father had intended to relocate with them to Virginia, where he had other family. At the time, minor’s three younger half-siblings were supposed to be in the care of their maternal grandmother and were not supposed to have unsupervised visits with step-father (who is their biological father). A separate section 300 petition had thus been filed in Kern County with respect to these three minors.
Also at this hearing, minor, through counsel, requested a temporary restraining order based upon the sustained allegations of minor’s sexual abuse at the hands of step-father. The juvenile court granted this request, after which father’s counsel noted that he had made no attempts to contact minor and intended to obey the court’s order. The matter was then continued to November 7, 2016.
At the continued hearing, minor’s counsel asked the juvenile court to issue a permanent restraining order against step-father in order to prevent him from inflicting any additional harm on her. A hearing on counsel’s request was ultimately held December 1, 2016. Among other things, step-father testified that he was aware that minor had made the allegations of sexual abuse against him, and that her half-siblings (his biological children) had been removed from parents’ custody following his attempt to leave the state with them. He further testified that his intent was to reunify with his children and, to that end, would abide by any order to stay away from minor. Step-father noted that he had voluntarily stayed away from minor since her detention.
Step-father’s attorney, in turn, argued that step-father should not be subject to a permanent restraining order because he did not constitute an imminent risk of harm to minor because he had voluntarily stayed away from minor since detention. On the other hand, counsel for minor, mother and the agency all supported the issuance of such an order for the protection and well-being of minor.
At the conclusion of this hearing, the juvenile court granted counsel’s request for an order permanently restraining step-father from contact with minor. The court reasoned that, given the extent of sexual abuse minor had already suffered at step-father’s hands, his voluntary agreement to stay away from her was not sufficient to provide her the legal protection to which she was entitled. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Step-father contends on appeal there was no substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s issuance of a permanent restraining order against him for the protection of minor. The following legal principles govern his claim.
“Under section 213.5, subdivision (a), the juvenile court may issue an order ‘enjoining any person from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, harassing, telephoning, . . . destroying the personal property, contacting, . . . or disturbing the peace of the child . . . .’ This subdivision also permits the court to issue orders including the child’s parent as a person protected from the behaviors listed above and excluding the restrained person from the child’s home.” (In re C.Q. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 355, 363.)
“Issuance of a restraining order under section 213.5 does not require ‘evidence that the restrained person has previously molested, attacked, struck, sexually assaulted, stalked, or battered the child.’ [Citation.] Nor does it require evidence of a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. (Ibid.) . . . [S]ection 213.5 is analogous ‘to Family Code section 6340, which permits the issuance of a protective order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act . . . if “failure to make [the order] may jeopardize the safety of the petitioner . . . .” ’ [Citations.]” (In re C.Q., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 363-364.)
“In reviewing the restraining order, ‘we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the juvenile court’s determination. If there is substantial evidence supporting the order, the court’s issuance of the restraining order may not be disturbed.’ [Citations.]” (In re C.Q., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 364.)
Having reviewed the record in this case, we conclude there is indeed substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s issuance of a permanent restraining order against step-father for the protection of minor. In particular, the court found, based upon evidence that included the agency’s reports detailing minor’s statements in the CALICO interview that step-father had committed numerous acts of sexual abuse against her in Honduras before the family moved to California in 2015. Rather than refuting this evidence or otherwise challenging the juvenile court’s sustained sexual-abuse finding, step-father counters that there was no evidence that he posed an imminent threat to minor’s safety in light of his “uncontradicted” testimony that he had voluntarily stayed away from minor since detention and would continue to do so. Nonsense. The social worker in this case reported, based on the CALICO interview with minor, that step-father had forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and anus multiple times over a period of time spanning several years. Further, minor told the agency during her interview that, in committing this abuse, step-father had locked minor in the bedroom and forcibly restrained her. And step-father, at the contested hearing, acknowledged both minor’s allegations of sexual abuse, as well as his attempt to leave the state with minor’s half-siblings, which resulted in their removal from parents’ custody. Given this evidence that step-father had already committed numerous past acts of sexual abuse toward minor – beginning when she was just 4 years old – and had recently attempted to abscond with her half-siblings to Virginia, the juvenile court had ample grounds for mistrusting step-father’s promises and concluding that “failure to make [the permanent restraining order] may jeopardize the safety of [minor.]” (In re C.Q., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 363-364 [noting, further, that issuance of a restraining order under section 213.5 “does not require ‘evidence that the restrained person has previously molested, attacked, struck, sexually assaulted, stalked, or battered the child,’ ” or “evidence of a reasonable apprehension of future abuse”]; see also In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 212-213 [affirming restraining order against mother where there was “ample evidence” she had engaged in conduct toward minor and her caregivers that was “troubling, disturbing, annoying, and vexatious”].)
Accordingly, on the given record, there is indeed a valid basis for affirming the juvenile court’s permanent restraining order. (See In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 168 [so long as there is substantial evidence in the record, we affirm the juvenile court order even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion]. Accordingly, step-father’s challenge fails.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s permanent restraining order of December 1, 2016 is affirmed.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, P. J.


_________________________
Siggins, J.