In re C.B. CA4/2

── In re C.B. CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 In re C.B. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO In re C.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E087200 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPIN2400084) v. OPINION K.K., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Susanne S. Cho, Judge. Affirmed. John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Assistant County Counsel, and Julie Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  In this dependency case, a father appeals the termination of his reunification services at the 12-month review hearing. He argues no substantial evidence supports three findings underlying that order: that returning his four daughters to his care would create a substantial risk of detriment, that he was provided with reasonable services, and that there was no reasonable probability the children would be returned if the matter was 1 continued to the 18-month review hearing. We affirm. I. FACTS Defendant and appellant K.K. (father) has four daughters—C.B. (born 2014), R.K. 2 (born 2017), A.K. (born 2018), and V.K. (born 2020)—with their mother M.B. (mother). Mother also has a son, Z.B. (born 2023), with a different man. According to father, only after Z.B. was born did he learn he was not the boy’s father, and after attempts to “work things out” with mother were unsuccessful, he moved out of the family home. In March 2024, the five children resided with mother. Plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) responded to a report that the maternal grandfather had sexually abused C.B. That alleged abuse was committed after mother allowed the maternal grandfather to stay with the family temporarily even though she knew he was a registered sex offender and had a history of 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Father is C.B’s biological father, but he was not on the birth certificate or present for her birth because mother (born 1998) was a minor at the time and father was an adult (born 1991). He was present for the births of their other children, he is on their birth certificates, and he was living with mother at the time of their births. 2 substance abuse. The department also learned that mother had been leaving the children at home alone without any adult supervision, and there were concerns about mother’s own substance abuse and mental health. A social worker who visited the home found it “was messy and smelled musty.” The children were “disheveled, but without any marks or bruises.” The department contacted father, who was living in Nevada. He said he was willing to care for his children, but he was unempl