Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re E.K CA3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: C103480

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (13)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/12/26 In re E.K CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

In re E.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN C103480
SERVIVCES AGENCY,
(Super. Ct. Nos. JV2024-
Plaintiff and Respondent, 02141 & JV2024-02142)

v.

C.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant C.K., father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 361, 395.) He
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to select jurisdictional findings and contends
the juvenile court erred in denying him visitation with the minors. We affirm.

1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2024, Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (the
Agency) received a referral regarding the minors after father took the 11-year-old minor,
G.K., to a therapy intake appointment that day during which G.K. disclosed “sexual
touching” by father. When G.K. and father were asked during intake whether there was a
trauma history, father said he did not think so. The minor began to cry and asked to
speak to the mandated reporter in private. When father left the room, the minor wrote a
letter disclosing some “sexual touching” by father when the minor was younger. The
minor reported that father believed the minor to be sleeping but the minor was awake.
G.K. reported being uncomfortable around father and that it had been going on for a long
time, although the minor did not notice the “sexual behavior” when the minor was
younger. G.K. did not recall the last time it happened.
When the social worker met with mother regarding the allegations, mother’s first
question was, “It’s not sexual is it?” Mother stated she feared something like this was
going to happen, as she was sexually abused as a child, and disclosed that a year or two
before, G.K.’s older sibling, E.K., reported father putting his hand down her nightgown
all the way to her private parts and that this was how father used to initiate sexual contact
with mother. Mother reported she believed the disclosure and that G.K. would “never
lie.”
An MDI (multidisciplinary interview) took place with both minors. G.K.
described the home as dirty and messy, and stated that father “groped” the minor’s breast
more than once while G.K. was on the bed and father thought the minor was asleep.
When asked if other touching took place, G.K. did not want to talk about it. G.K. said the
first time father touched the minor’s breast was when the minor was eight and the last
time was within the last year. G.K. said the incidents were traumatic but the minor had
been too afraid to say anything. The minor also reported not being fed, being neglected
by mother, and not trusting mother.

2
E.K. disclosed that father grabbed her breast when waking her up for school. One
time, she was sleeping on father’s bed when he grabbed her breast and when she looked
at him, he was “allegedly sleeping.” When she mentioned it later that morning, he said
“he must have thought I was my mom or something” and then laughed and said, “Don’t
go telling people that I did that or I will get in trouble.” She described two other specific
occasions when father groped her breast – one when they were sleeping back-to-back and
another when she did not respond to his attempts to wake her by shaking her and playing
loud music.
E.K. described a specific subsequent incident when she was 12 years old. This
time, she was lying on the bed pretending to be asleep. Mother, father, and G.K. were all
home at the time. Father came in and tried to wake her. She pretended not to wake and
then father got on top of her, lifted her shirt, and began sucking and chewing on her
nipple. Father then placed his hands down her shorts, pulled the shorts down, and
inserted his finger into her vagina. E.K. did not know what to do. She then heard father
unzip his pants and felt him trying to insert his penis in her vagina. At this point, she
said, out of either panic or distress, “ ‘You are squishing me.” ” Father pulled up her
pants and zipped his pants. She got up and took a shower and tried to process what had
happened. She did not tell anyone for a while because she was scared, father had power
over the family, and she did not have another place to stay. She did tell mother after the
first time father had groped her breast and mother responded, “let me know if it happens
again.”
Mother confirmed that E.K. had reported that father would pinch her “boob” and
“bottom” by her buttocks to wake her up in the morning. Mother stated the minors did
not like to get up in the morning and the parents had difficulty waking them. When E.K.
was five years old, she told mother that father had “gone down her shirt down through the
front of her pants” and the mother reported “that just didn’t make sense and there was no
possible way that could’ve happened.” Two years before the instant petition was filed,

3
E.K. reported that father grabbed her breast. Mother confronted father who did not deny
it outright, and she told him not to touch the minors. She had been yelling at him and she
did not remember his response exactly but it was “probably” something about her
overreacting because of mother’s history of sexual abuse as a young child. Mother
confirmed that she did tell E.K. to let her know if it happened again.
When father was informed of the allegations he groped and touched the minors’
breasts, he denied it happened but said, if it did happen, it more than likely happened by
accident while attempting to wake the minors. He denied any inappropriate behavior.
When asked if he had ever touched either of the minors’ breasts for sexual gratification,
he stated, “Not that I know of.” When asked if he had ever placed his mouth on the
breast and/or nipple of E.K. and sucked or “chewed” on it, he stated, “Um, no.” When
asked if he had ever digitally penetrated E.K.’s vagina, he stated, “No.” When asked if he
had ever placed his penis against E.K.’s vagina, he stated, “Uh, no.” Father was not
emphatic in his responses and continued to express confusion about the investigation
despite being told numerous times that the concerns related to the sexual allegations and
condition of the home. Father reported that both minors had been in therapy “of some
sort” since they were very young. Both minors suffered from anxiety, and both were on
medication. E.K. also reported that she had autism.
The Agency filed a section 300 petition, under subdivisions (b) and (d), on behalf
of minors E.K. (then age 14) and G.K. (then age 11), alleging the minors suffered, or
were at risk of suffering, serious harm as a result of father’s sexual abuse of both minors
and mother’s failure to protect the minors from such abuse. The petition also alleged the
family home was filthy and failed to meet basic health and safety standards. The minors
were ordered detained. The November 27, 2024, detention order provided that mother
was to receive three hours and father was to receive one hour of supervised visitation per
week.

4
On December 11, 2024, G.K. reviewed the detention report and agreed with what
was written and did not have any additional statements. A letter written by G.K. to
G.K.’s counselor was attached to the jurisdiction report and read: “I don’t feel
comfortable with my dad because of how he acts. He makes (and has been making)
overtly or slightly sexual comments, has touched me before in ways that make me
uncomfortable being alone with him or in a vulnerable state. He makes me believe it’s
my fault and I don’t know what to do. He says he’s trying to be better about it and he
has, but that whole experience is too much and makes me extremely uncomfortable with
touch. It’s been going on for a long time. I didn’t notice the sexual behavior when I was
younger. I don’t remember the last time it happened. It’s happened before, he was under
the impression I was asleep, it’s why I’m not comfortable being alone around him. I was
too scared to do anything at that time.”
E.K. said she wanted to clarify and expand on her disclosure of incidents of sexual
abuse by father but preferred to do it in writing. She indicated she had documented a
“major incident” and was still working on documenting “two smaller incidents that
happened.” She had texted mother recently about the “major incident,” describing where
father digitally penetrated her and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. She
explained that she was almost frozen in fear but when she realized what was happening,
she “thankfully” took action.
The jurisdiction report, filed December 16, 2024, reported the minors were visiting
with mother but declining visits with father, indicating they were unwilling to participate
at that time. Father was upset the children were declining visits with him. He had not
seen them since they were detained. He denied having inappropriately touched the
minors, denied pinching the minors’ breasts or buttocks to wake them, denied E.K. still
slept in his room, and denied there was insufficient food in the home. In response to
discussions about the report that he had put his hand down E.K.’s nightgown, father
stated, “What does it matter?” and it was “a very long time ago.”

5
Although mother initially believed the allegations of both minors, she now said
she was “on the fence” as to whether she believed E.K.’s allegations and did not believe
G.K. was telling the truth. She had discovered a box top where G.K. had written
“October 15, 2024, the day my life changed” and concluded G.K. had planned the
disclosure because G.K. was upset at mother. G.K. wanted her to move out and get a job.
Mother then told the social worker, “The last two years, there’s no way anything
happened. He’s been gone the whole time, every night and every weekend, the entire
weekend.” The social worker asked mother, “Who wakes them up for school?” and
mother said, “He does, usually,” explaining it was her coparenting arrangement that
father took the minors to school and she picked them up and put them to bed.
In a January 2025 text conversation between G.K. and mother, G.K. confronted
mother on the topic of nutrition and parenting. Mother responded by suggesting the
minor’s caregiver adopt the child and told G.K. she did not believe the minor had been
sexually abused by father, indicating she believed the minor made the accusations so the
minor did not have to live in the home. The minor maintained the accusations were true
and that father had “raped” the minor on multiple occasions since the minor was six years
old.
Thereafter, a follow-up MDI occurred. During the interview, G.K. disclosed
details of sexual abuse that were not included during the first interview, explaining the
minor was “more comfortable now, more confident,” and “in better mental health not
having to see my dad every day after what he did.” The minor disclosed multiple and
detailed accounts of father using lubrication to insert his finger and penis in the minor’s
anus. The incidents had occurred in the home, in the camping trailer, and in a hotel
during a family vacation. The minor described feeling guilt about it happening and not
reporting it sooner in order to protect E.K. G.K. said the sexual abuse happened a lot –
10 or 20 times.

6
The Agency filed a section 387 amended petition on February 5, 2025. In addition
to the earlier allegations relating to E.K. and the allegation that father had groped G.K.’s
breast, the petition added the allegations in (b-1) and (d-1) that father had inserted his
finger and penis into G.K.’s anus.
Mother waived her right to a contested jurisdiction hearing and submitted on the
Agency’s reports. Father called the social worker as a witness and submitted exhibits,
including his health summary packet and several character reference letters. The social
worker testified that delayed reporting by a minor who is the victim of sexual abuse is
“very common.” The social worker found the minors’ disclosures to be consistent during
her investigation and did not see a motivation for either minor to fabricate the allegations
of abuse in this case.
The juvenile court found the allegations in the amended petition true, adjudicated
the minors dependent children of the court, and ordered them removed from parental
custody. In making its findings and orders, the court addressed the credibility of the
minors. It observed they gave the same account with increased specificity each time and
there was no basis to believe the minors fabricated a story just to escape the conditions of
the home. The court noted mother’s statements provided some corroboration to the
minors’ statements. For example, mother had stated father’s actions with E.K. were
similar to how he initiated sexual contact with her. And mother had also asked,
unprompted, if the allegations being made by G.K. were sexual in nature. The court
found the minors provided credible reasons for not reporting the abuse earlier, such as
father’s power over the family, and the fact that they had nowhere else to live. Finally,
the court found father’s statements describing his touching of the minors as “accidents”
and that he minimized many of the allegations rather than denying them outright to be “a
bit of an odd response.”
The juvenile court ordered reunification services and visitation for mother but
bypassed father for reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6), based

7
on its finding of severe sexual abuse. It found visitation between father and the minors
would be detrimental to the minors and ordered no visitation be provided.
DISCUSSION
I
Jurisdiction
Father first requests this court review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
allegations in subparts (b-1) and (d-1) of the petition as to minor G.K. He acknowledges
that, even if the findings as to those subparts were stricken, jurisdiction over G.K.
remains. Additionally, the allegations of sexual abuse as to E.K. would also remain.
Even so, he requests we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of his challenge to
these two findings, noting we have such discretion when the finding: (1) serves as the
basis for the disposition orders which are challenged on appeal, (2) could be prejudicial
to appellant or impact future dependency proceedings, or (3) could have consequences
for appellant beyond jurisdiction. (See In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; In
re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763; In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266,
283.) Father does not, however, provide any analysis or discussion as to how these bases
might apply here.1
Nonetheless, because the challenged jurisdictional findings relate to father’s
restriction on visitation, we will exercise our discretion to address his contention that the
jurisdictional findings of (b-1) and (d-1) in the section 387 supplemental petition,

1 For the first time in his reply brief, father argues we should exercise our discretion
because of the “egregious nature” of the challenged jurisdictional findings. (We do not
generally consider points raised for the first time in the reply brief absent a showing of
good cause for the failure to present them earlier, as it deprives the respondent of an
opportunity to counter the argument. (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015)
234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52; American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446,
1453.)

8
alleging father had inserted his finger and his penis into minor G.K.’s anus, is not
supported by substantial evidence. We reject the contention because it lacks merit.
Under section 355, subdivision (b), the social worker’s report, and hearsay
evidence contained therein, is admissible and constitutes competent evidence upon which
a finding of jurisdiction may be made. With certain exceptions,2 if a party to the
jurisdictional hearing raises a timely objection to the admission of specific hearsay
evidence contained in a social study, that evidence is not sufficient by itself to support a
jurisdictional finding or any ultimate fact upon which a jurisdictional finding is made.
(§ 355, subd. (b).) However, no such objection was made in this case. Thus, minor
G.K.’s hearsay statements contained in the social worker’s report were admissible and
competent evidence of the challenged jurisdictional findings.
Father argues minor G.K.’s statements were unreliable and/or “not credible”
because: (1) the statements were made at a second MDI 107 days after the minor’s
removal and differed from the minor’s initial disclosure of father’s sexual abuse; (2) there
was no evidence of physical injury presented to support the minor’s statements; (3) the
minor never complained of pain in the rectal area; and (4) the minor’s description of
father’s behavior escalated from inappropriate to what father characterizes as “a reckless
rapist.” Father argues the sexually abusive behavior minor G.K. described is inconsistent
with his character, as father’s psychiatrist said he was responsible, honest, cooperative
and forthright and there is nothing else in the record to indicate he has a “reckless streak.”
He further argues his large size (354 pounds in 2021) combined with the minor’s large
size rendered nonconsensual, penetrating anal sexual activity, as alleged by the minor to

2 One such exception is when the hearsay declarant is a minor under 12 years old
who is the subject of the jurisdictional hearing, unless the objecting party establishes that
the statement is unreliable because it was the product of fraud, deceit, or undue influence.
(§ 355, subd. (c)(1)(B).) G.K. was 11 years old when the challenged hearsay statements
were made and 12 years old at the time of the contested hearing.

9
have occurred during a 2023 family vacation, unlikely to go unnoticed. Finally, father
argues the juvenile court’s remarks that the minors appeared to be withdrawn is
unsupported by the evidence because it is “questionable” how much the juvenile court
“could glean regarding their temperament” from their online (as opposed to in-person)
presence. “In conclusion, [father argues, the] language in the b-1 and d-1 section 387
petition that father had inserted his penis and fingers into G.K. should be stricken as
unreliable and unsupported by the evidence. The court did not properly evaluate
reliability of the eleven-year old’s late reports of severe sexual abuse.”
We reject father’s assignment of error. His contentions amount to a request that
we reweigh the evidence and reassess the minor’s credibility. In reviewing the juvenile
court’s findings, we “ ‘do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses.’ ”
(In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531.) To the contrary, we
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, accepting every
reasonable inference and resolve all conflicts in its favor. (In re Autumn H. (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) We conclude there is ample evidence to support the juvenile
court’s findings.
II
Visitation
Father also contends the juvenile court’s finding that visitation would be
detrimental to the minor was not supported by substantial evidence. This claim lacks
merit.
When, as here, the juvenile court has denied reunification services to a parent, the
court “may continue to permit the parent to visit the child unless it finds that visitation
would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (f).) The power to regulate visitation
between parents and dependent minors rests with the juvenile court. (In re S.H. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-1558.) “Accordingly, if visitation is not consistent with the
well-being of the child, the juvenile court has the discretion to deny such contact.” (In re

10
T.M. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1217; see also In re Matthew C. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
1090.) The court has great discretion in deciding visitation and we will not disturb the
juvenile court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994)
7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) We review the finding of detriment for substantial evidence. (In re
A.J. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 154, 156, 160.)
Father argues the juvenile court’s finding of detriment is not supported by
evidence because the minors were not afraid of him, and he would not present a threat to
their physical safety during a monitored visit. He repeatedly emphasizes that the minors
had accepted his Christmas cards and gifts, suggesting that having done so dispels the
juvenile court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental. We disagree and find
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding.
The sexual abuse perpetrated by father, combined with the minors’ steadfast
refusal to participate in visits with father, supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that
visitation would be detrimental. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 51 [child’s
aversion to visiting an abusive parent is a proper factor for consideration in administering
visitation so long as it is not “the sole factor”].) Both minors reported suffering
substantial emotional distress because of father’s abuse and have steadfastly refused
visitation with him since their initial detention. Both minors struggled with disclosing the
abuse. G.K. was able to talk about some of the most serious abuse only after having
separation from father. Both minors suffer from anxiety, depression, and insomnia, and
both are receiving psychiatric care and medication. The juvenile court reasonably
concluded that forcing these minors to visit with father under these circumstances would
be detrimental to their well-being.
Father argues the court should have ordered weekly visitation, leaving the decision
whether to visit to the discretion of the minors. Such an order would have been improper.
“If the juvenile court orders visitation, ‘it must also ensure that at least some visitation, at
a minimum level determined by the court itself, will in fact occur.’ [Citation.] When the

11
court abdicates its discretion and permits a third party, including the dependent child, to
determine whether any visitation will occur, the court impermissibly delegates its
authority over visitation and abuses its discretion.” (In re Ethan J. (2015)
236 Cal.App.4th 654, 661.) In any event, finding visitation with father would be
detrimental, the juvenile court appropriately exercised its discretion to deny visitation
instead of placing the burden on the minors to refuse visits with father.
DISPOSITION
The orders and judgment of the juvenile court are affirmed.

/s/
WISEMAN, J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, Acting P. J.

/s/
MESIWALA, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

12