The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a decision allowing a father, Manuel G., to return to his home with his two younger children, Ev.G. and Ez.G., despite previous allegations of sexual abuse involving his stepdaughter, Brianna V. This ruling, filed on October 27, 2026, in case number B353140, has significant implications for the family and the juvenile dependency system.

The case centers around the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department), which initially sought to protect the children following allegations against their father. The ruling affects the family dynamics and the ongoing concerns surrounding child safety in cases of alleged abuse.

Background

The parties involved in this case include the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, which is the appellant, and Manuel G., the father and respondent. The Department's involvement began in September 2025 when the juvenile court exerted dependency jurisdiction over Brianna V., born in 2008, Ev.G., born in 2017, and Ez.G., born in 2024. The court's decision was based on allegations of sexual abuse by Manuel G. against his 17-year-old stepdaughter, Brianna.

In the initial proceedings, the court found sufficient corroborative evidence to support Brianna's claims, including her disclosures to friends and relatives, behavioral indicators of trauma, and her failure to recant. Despite the father's denial of the allegations and the absence of criminal charges, the court ordered him to attend a sexual abuse treatment program and participate in individual counseling.

Following a dispositional hearing in October 2025, the court allowed the father to remain in the home with the children under specific conditions, including not being left alone with the younger children. The Department appealed this decision, leading to a series of legal actions including a stay on the order pending further review.

The Ruling

In this second appeal, the California Court of Appeal reviewed the juvenile court's decision to grant Manuel G.'s petition under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. The court found that the juvenile court had not abused its discretion in allowing the father to return home.

The court ruled, "the law does not require a parent to admit sexual abuse before a home-of-parent order is appropriate; instead, the more relevant query was whether father had made 'sufficient progress in understanding the impact [of the conduct at issue] that [father] can be safely returned home.'"

The court noted that the father had completed several sessions of a sexual abuse treatment program and individual counseling, demonstrating a change in circumstances. The court emphasized that the best interests of the children were served by allowing the father to return home, as it would promote stability and a positive impact on their lives.

The ruling also highlighted that the juvenile court had imposed additional safety measures to protect Brianna, including requiring counseling for her and the presence of the maternal grandmother in the home. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s orders from March 2 and March 10, 2026, which allowed for the modification of the prior dispositional orders.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the family involved and the broader juvenile dependency system. It underscores the court's consideration of a parent's rehabilitation efforts and the importance of maintaining family unity when possible. The decision also clarifies that a parent's denial of abuse does not automatically disqualify them from regaining custody of their children, provided they demonstrate progress in understanding the impact of their actions.

Furthermore, the ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the balance between child safety and family reunification. The court's emphasis on the best interests of the children and the importance of stability in their lives could set a precedent for future dependency cases.

What's Next

The Department of Children and Family Services can potentially appeal this ruling, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending appeals or related cases. The outcome of this case may also affect ongoing discussions about child welfare policies and practices in California.