In re C.B. CA4/3

── In re C.B. CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 In re C.B. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re C.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G065952 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 25DP0371, v. 25DP0372) A.B., OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael T. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.  Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors. * * * A.B. (Father) appeals after the juvenile court made jurisdictional findings declaring his then 17-year-old son, C.B., and 13-year-old daughter, E.B., dependents of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j).1 On appeal, Father contends the court erred in assuming jurisdiction over both children because neither child was in need of the court’s protection. We affirm the court’s orders in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In late March 2025, C.B. reported Father had sexually abused him from ages 11 to 13 and told him not to tell anyone about the abuse. C.B. came forward because he was concerned about his siblings and the other foster children in Father’s care. After his report, Orange County Sheriff’s deputies took E.B. and C.B. into protective custody. I. DETENTION REPORT The day before the children were removed, an Orange County Sheriff deputy interviewed Father, who denied sexually abusing C.B. or the other children in his home. Father admitted he gave C.B. a back massage and 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Our factual summary is limited to those facts relevant to the issues presented in this appeal. 2 claimed C.B.’s therapist had recommended it as a method of comforting C.B. after he had expressed suicidal ideation. Father added that C.B. became sexually aroused during the massage. Father claimed C.B. made up the allegations of sexual abuse because he was upset Father wanted to transfer him to a different school due to poor grades. Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) interviewed Father’s husband about the allegations. He reported C.B. had told him about the massages in December 2024. When Father’s husband asked whether Father was naked or whether anything sexual happened during the massage, C.B. said no. After C.B. began crying, Father’s husband asked him whether Father had raped him. C.B. again said no. Father’s husband denied ever witnessing Father touch any of the children’s private parts. He also explained he thought C.B.’s therapist “was okay” with Father giving C.B. a back massage. T