In re V.K. CA4/2

Filed 11/4/26 In re V.K. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 V.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E088447 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPRI2600011) v. OPINION S.K., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Walter H. Kubelun, Judge. Affirmed. Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Jamila T. Purnell, Chief Assistant County Counsel, and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel. 1  I. INTRODUCTION S.K. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order bypassing reunification services to him under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) (hereafter section 361.5(b)(6)). On appeal, Father argues the juvenile court erred in denying Father services under section 361.5(b)(6) because substantial evidence does not support a clear and convincing “no benefit” finding and the juvenile court failed to make the individualized child specific determination required by section 361.5(b)(6) and section 361.5, subdivision (i).2 We disagree and affirm the order denying Father reunification services. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 12, 2026, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a petition on behalf of then 15-year-old V.K., 14-year-old L.K., and 12-year- old L.S.K. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition alleged that Father sexually abused four now adult siblings, that Mother was aware of the abuse and allowed Father to remain in the home and provide care for the children. Specifically, the petition alleged Father 1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2 S.K. (Mother) is not a party to this appeal. Mother and Father have five adult children and three minor children. 2 anally penetrated D.K. on two occasions, raped A.K. three times, inappropriately touched O.K., and showed N.K. pornography, forced her to give him oral copulation, forced oral copulation upon her, manually stimulated her, and anally penetrated her with his penis. The petition also alleged Father and Mother had a history of discouraging the children from disclosing abuse or neglect. The petition further alleged V.K., L.K., and L.S.K. were at risk of abuse due to the sexual abuse of their now adult siblings. The family had 11 prior referrals for neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse of the children between 2004 and 2023. In 2013, N.K. disclosed sexual abuse by Father between the ages of five and 12. N.K. said the abuse stopped in 2009. At age 22, N.K. moved out of the home and confronted Father who apologized and also admitted abusing A.K. and O.K. The parents had emigrated from Uzbekistan prior to the birth of their children. The entire family were hearing impaired and required both an American Sign (ASL) language interpreter and a Certified Deaf Interpreter. The two oldest children also had severe autism. DPSS utilized an ASL video interpreting service to communicate with the family. Mother confirmed that she preferred to communicate through ASL and to receive letters and forms in English. DPSS received the current referral on January 5, 2026, with allegations of sexual abuse and general neglect. The family resided together in the same home apart from two other adult siblings, N.K. and P.K. When DPSS met with Mother, she explained that “the two oldest adult children, [A.K.] and [D.K.], are diagnosed with Autism, and everyone in 3 the family is hearing impaired.” Mother confirmed the family was previously investigated by Yolo County and Sacramento County, but she “reported the allegations were ‘misunderstandings’ regarding allegations of physical discipline.” When DPSS asked her about the allegations, Mother said that “the agencies needed to know the children were, ‘safe from the father touching them inappropriately.’ ” Mother “explained the father was never a Christian in the past, but now he is Christian and he ‘obviously made some mistakes’ prior to becoming a Christian.” Mother “disclosed she found out around Thanksgiving of 2013 or 2014 that the father ‘touched’ and ‘molested’ [A.K.] and [N.K.].” Mother “was unsure when the abuse began, but reported [N.K.] told her the abuse stopped in 2009.” Mother initially denied that Father sexually abused D.K., but later said “the father told her ‘something’ happened to [D.K.] with ‘someone.’ ” She could not recall further details. Mother claimed that she planned to report Father to law enforcement and file for divorce, but N.K. “allegedly begged the mother not to” because “ ‘the abuse stopped’ three or four years [ago].” Mother explained that she confronted Father “shortly after [N.K.]’s disclosure” and Father “ ‘confessed’ to the mother he had molested the two older daughters and allegedly apologized for what he had done.” Father “ ‘confessed’ ” when the family was living in Sacramento that he “touched [N.K.] and [A.K.] on their ‘private parts inappropriately.’ ” Mother indicated that Father had not and would not molest the younger children. In the past, Mother was “ ‘a little suspicious’ ” that something was wrong with Father, A.K. and N.K., but she could not verbalize why. She “intuitively” 4 knew something was wrong, and now she knew “ ‘intuitively he’s fine.’ ” Mother “ ‘knew’ ” Father was no longer molesting “any other children” and she “admitted to leaving the father to provide sole care for the children as needed.” Mother denied Father ever sought treatment or obtained counseling for the abuse, and believed Father had changed because he became a Christian, attended church, read the bible and behaved “calmer.” L.K. and L.S.K. denied Father inappropriately touched them and denied seeing Father behave inappropriately with their siblings. V.K. also denied sexual abuse and denied seeing Father act inappropriately with his siblings. Adult sibling O.K. also denied being inappropriately touched. O.K., L.K., V.K., and L.S.K. informed DPSS they all felt safe in the home and believed Father had “ ‘changed.’ ” The children expressed an understanding as to the abuse N.K. suffered and believed Father was a good father to them. They expressed concern about N.K. and were adamant about not staying with N.K. Father informed DPSS that the family was being investigated “because of what happened 16 years ago.” He asserted that the abuse stopped in 2010 and that he had changed. Father declined to discuss the allegations without an attorney present. DPSS also spoke with adult sibling N.K. When asked about the family’s history with child welfare services, N.K. “recalled an investigation occurring when she was approximately four or five-years-old” and said her “ ‘parents trained me not to say anything.’ ” N.K. “confirmed [D.K.] is deaf and has autism, and [A.K.] is deaf, blind and has autism.” N.K. was unwilling to answer any questions about the investigation other 5 than those pertinent to arranging the children’s placement, as N.K. “was worried about her safety and protection.” N.K. did not have frequent communications with the family as she moved out three years prior and saw the family twice per year. N.K. last saw the family in December 2025 and inquired of L.K. and L.S.K. if Father abused them in any way and they denied being abused. N.K. “confirmed the father confessed to touching [O.K.] in a sexual manner when [O.K.] was approximately one-year[]-old.” N.K. eventually confirmed she was sexually abused by Father and that the abuse began when N.K. was around five years old, and the family was living in Sacramento. N.K. explained the abuse began when Father showed her pornography and bathed with her. She said the abuse “escalated” in 2006 when the family moved and her mother worked on weekends. Father also forced N.K. to give him “ ‘blowjobs’ ” when Mother ran errands. Father showed N.K. pornography “which depicted father/daughter sexual relationships (older men with what appeared to be approximately 12-year-old girls) and sibling sexual relationships.” N.K. said her father “linked the sexual acts to the Old Testament and justified the incestuous relationships as biblical, as the family was and had been very religious.” N.K. reported Father “forced oral copulation upon her, would manually stimulate her, took photographs of her (possibly videos; however, she remembered cameras being around) and anally penetrated her with his penis ‘a few times.’ ” N.K. “denied remembering any digital or penile penetration of her vagina.” N.K. “shared one memory of the father bringing [D.K.] into his bedroom and the father, ‘tried to engage all three of us.’ ” 6  N.K. noted Father stopped sexually abusing her when she was approximately 12 years old. N.K. said she “repressed the memories” of the abuse until she became an adult and entered her first relationship. When N.K. spoke with Father about the abuse, he was surprised she remembered what happened. Later in 2022, Father “apologized to [N.K.] for what he had done to her and admitted to also sexually abusing [A.K.] until the age of 18-years-old.” N.K. never witnessed Father sexually abusing A.K. or O.K., but after Father confessed to abusing A.K. and O.K., she said “there were many signs [A.K.] was also abused.” N.K. “often saw blood in the bathroom before the time [A.K.] could have begun menstruation.” N.K. also reported that A.K. displayed “severely sexualized behaviors, such as touching random men’s genitals in public, and touching others frequently.” N.K. described that A.K. “was always in pain, she would hit her genitals and breasts and punch her eyes.” N.K. believed A.K. lost her eyesight as a result of the sexual abuse by Father as A.K. would continuously hit her eyes. Following the investigation, DPSS obtained protective custody warrants to remove the children from their parents’ custody on January 7, 2026. The detention hearing was held on January 13, 2026. At that time, the children’s counsel noted the children were anxious for the investigation to conclude and they wanted to return home. The juvenile court formally detained the children from parental custody and ordered the children placed on an extended visit with a non-relative family member. The parents were provided with pre-dispositional services and supervised visits twice a week for two hours. 7  On February 6, 2026, DPSS filed a first amended petition on behalf of the children to reflect that Father sexually abused the children’s adult siblings by engaging in sodomy, rape, oral copulation, penetration with a foreign object, and exposure to pornography, which placed V.K., L.S.K. and L.K. at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness. The petition struck reference to adult sibling O.K. and allegation b-3 was amended to reflect that Mother knew of the sexual abuse N.K. suffered but permitted Father to act as the children’s primary caregiver and minimized his prior sexual abuse. At a continuance hearing on March 12, 2026, the children’s counsel noted that the children were frustrated with the amount of time the case was taking. Mother was again interviewed for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. As to the abuse allegations, Mother claimed she had never seen it and could not say if it was “ ‘true’ ” or “ ‘false.’ ” She claimed she was confused because N.K. kept changing her stories. The children informed DPSS that they would like to return home to their parents, and if that was not possible, they stated that they were comfortable remaining with their current caregiver. They affirmed that their caregiver had been meeting all their immediate needs and that they felt safe in their caregiver’s home. The children had adjusted well to their current placement and their caregiver reported that the children were emotionally comfortable, engaged in normal daily routines, and participated in school and extracurricular activities. The caregiver also noted that the children appeared happy, felt safe, and received consistent care and supervision. 8  The parents participated in supervised visits with the children. The caregiver supervised the parents’ interactions with the children. On March 31, 2026, the children reported their parents were visiting consistently and “described them as positive experiences.” The parents frequently attended the children’s extracurricular sporting events, church services and would spend additional time with the children afterward. The children expressed interest in having longer visits, having visits in a home setting, and allowing family outings such as going to the beach. DPSS noted that because the family attends the children’s games, tournaments and church services, the parents had “a significant amount of cumulative supervised family contact well beyond the scheduled two-hour community visits[.]” The children declined to participate in mental health services. The parents were also regularly participating in pre-dispositional services. Father informed DPSS that he was scheduled to begin parenting classes through the Orange County Deaf Equal Access Foundation (OCDEAF). Father enrolled in a 10-week Positive Parenting Program. Mother attended her parenting program through the Center on Deafness Inland Empire (CODIE). By April 2026, Mother and Father both completed their respective parenting programs. Father also attended counseling. Mother also continued to participate in individual therapy, although she was “slow to open up” and most of her communications centered on her religious background. Mother’s therapist opined that although Mother cared deeply for her children, she did not “appear to fully understand the severity of the situation or her role within it.” Mother could “recite the 9 steps required of her moving forward” but had “not yet demonstrated the ability to meaningfully connect this information to her children’s past experiences.” Father’s therapist Dr. Kordus reported Father “attended the majority of his scheduled sessions and has been generally cooperative with the structure of treatment” but “throughout the course of therapy, he has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to the allegation that led to his referral.” Due to Father’s consistent denials his “treatment has not been able to include direct processing of the alleged behavior.” Although Father was “able to express socially normative beliefs at an abstract level (for example, stating that individuals who harm children should be held accountable),” he “demonstrates limited ability to apply these principals to personal or situational contexts.” Dr. Kordus explained Father’s “responses reflect cognitive rigidity when discussing . . . general or hypothetical scenarios” which “limited opportunities for deeper therapeutic exploration of accountability, impact, and behavioral change.” Dr. Kordus also noted concerns regarding Father’s “affective presentation,” since Father “has discussed highly emotional or distressing events—including the deaths of family members and topics involving significant conflict—while displaying minimal observable distress and, at times, smiling.” Dr. Kordus opined “[t]his pattern of incongruent and restricted affect may indicate emotional blunting, suppression, or compartmentalization, which could impact his ability to access and process emotional experiences and may limit his capacity for empathy and self-reflection.” Dr. Kordus further stated “when discussing broader issues related to harm or authority, the father’s reasoning appears to shift depending on 10 contextual factors such as perceived power, role, or justification.” Dr. Kordus believed that “[t]his variability suggests inconsistent application of moral or safety-related standards, particularly when considering the perspective of vulnerable individuals.” Father reported his coping strategies rely on prayer and reading the bible, but “it remains unclear whether these practices facilitate emotional processing or function primarily as a means of distancing from distressing material.” Prior to the contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the children all prepared letters to the court. L.S.K. stated she missed her parents and expressed she felt the safest and happiest when she was with them. She wanted to return home to her parents. V.K. said his parents take good care of him, are kind and supportive, and have never abused him. He also wanted to return home. L.K. wanted to return to her family as she loved her parents very much and being away from them had been painful for her. She felt the happiest and safest when she is with her family. The children’s letters were filed with the court on May 5, 2026. The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on May 5, 2026. DPSS recommended the juvenile court find the allegations in the first amended petition true, remove the children from parental custody and declare them dependents of the court, provide Mother with reunification services, and bypass services to Father under section 361.5(b)(6). Father and Mother requested the court find the petition not true and dismiss it. The children’s counsel agreed with DPSS’s position and informed the court the children feel safe and happy with their parents and are open to conjoint counseling. 11  The juvenile court interlineated the first amended petition to strike reference to adult sibling O.K. from allegations b-1, b-2, d-1 and j-1, and struck allegation b-3. The court found true the interlineated allegations, declared the children dependents of the court, and removed them from their parents’ custody. Specifically, the court found that Father sexually abused siblings N.K., A.K,, and D.K, but not O.K. The court found N.K’s abuse occurred from approximately age five to 12, that D.K. was anally penetrated on two occasions, and that A.K. was raped a minimum of three times. The court found these facts “constitute severe sexual abuse,” relying on N.K.’s disclosure, confirmed by Mother, and Father’s admissions to Mother. The court addressed reunification services to Father under section 361.5(b)(6). The court noted it shall not order services unless clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the best interest of the children under section 361.5(c)(2). The court noted that Father “has been generally cooperative with the therapy sessions.” The court explained while treatment has not included “direct processing of the alleged behavior,” clinical efforts focused on evaluating Father’s “cognitive, emotional and interpersonal functioning, including his capacity for insight, empathy and personal responsibility.” The court noted Father “is able to express socially normative beliefs at an abstract level,” including that individuals who harm children should be held accountable, and that he demonstrates “greater cognitive flexibility when discussing general or hypothetical scenarios” as compared to self-referential topics. The court also noted the therapist’s concerns about “a pattern of incongruent and restricted affect,” possible “emotional 12 blunting, suppression or compartmentalization,” and “inconsistent application of moral or safety related standards, particularly when considering the prospective of vulnerable individuals.” The court recognized that all three children wanted to be reunified with both parents and that it had reviewed their letters. However, the court found that services would not benefit the children based on the specific acts of severe sexual abuse and the circumstances under which abuse was inflicted. The court noted the abuse occurred “in the family home as to three children over many years” and “the emotional trauma suffered by all three victims continues to this day.” The court also found that “it was not likely the children could be safely returned to father within 12 months with no continuing supervision.” Relying on In re A.G. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 276 (A.G.), “where the court properly denied services to Father in the case of two sons when the father was found to have severely sexually abused his daughter,” the court explained “[s]ection 361.5(i) expressly provides that in determining whether to deny services pursuant to 361.5(b)(7) [sic], the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including severe sexual abuse of the sibling.” The court concluded that severe sexual abuse of a sibling, regardless of the victim’s sex or current age, supports a bypass finding as to other children in the household. The court thereafter declared the children dependents of the court, ordered them removed from parental custody, provided Mother with reunification 13 services, and found services would not benefit the children and thus bypassed Father’s services under section 361.5(b)(6). Father timely appealed. III. DISCUSSION Father contends that the juvenile court’s dispositional order denying him family reunification services should be reversed and the matter remanded. He argues that the court’s bypass finding pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) was not supported by substantial evidence and believes the children would benefit from a tailored, individualized plan. A. Applicable Law As a general rule, when a child is removed from parental custody under the dependency laws, the juvenile court is required to provide reunification services to “the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) However, it is also the “intent of the Legislature, especially with regard to young children, . . . that the dependency process proceed with deliberate speed and without undue delay.” (Marlene M. v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151.) Thus, the statutory scheme recognizes that there are cases in which the delay attributable to the provision of reunification services would be more detrimental to the minor than discounting the competing goal of family preservation. (Ibid.) Specifically, section 361.5, subdivision (b) exempts from reunification services “ ‘those parents who 14 are unlikely to benefit’ ” from such services or for whom reunification efforts are likely to be “ ‘fruitless.’ ” (In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 470, 474.) The statutory sections authorizing denial of reunification services are sometimes referred to as “bypass” provisions. (Melissa R. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 816, 821.) Under section 361.5(b)(6), the court may issue a bypass order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a dependent child has been so adjudicated “as a result of severe sexual abuse . . . to the child, a sibling, or a half sibling by a parent or guardian, . . . and the court makes a factual finding that it would not benefit the child to pursue reunification services with the offending parent or guardian.” The term “severe sexual abuse” in the statute “is defined very broadly.” (Cal. Juvenile Dependency Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1st ed. 2015) § 5.57, p. 370.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(B), provides: “A finding of severe sexual abuse, for the purposes of this subdivision, may be based on, but is not limited to, sexual intercourse, or stimulation involving genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact . . . or the penetration or manipulation of the child’s, sibling’s, or half sibling’s genital organs or rectum by any animate or inanimate object for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian . . . .” Father does not challenge the juvenile court’s finding that the severe sexual abuse prong of the foregoing language applied. In determining whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to section 361.5(b)(6), the court “shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the following factors:” (1) “The specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual 15 abuse”; (2) “The circumstances under which the abuse . . . was inflicted”; (3) “The severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child”; (4) “Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent ”; (5) “The likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent . . . within 12 months with no continuing supervision”; and (6) “Whether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent . . . .” (§ 361.5, subd. (i).) If the court decides to bypass services, it must “read into the record the basis for a finding of severe sexual abuse . . . under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), and shall also specify the factual findings used to determine that the provision of reunification services to the offending parent . . . would not benefit the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (k).) Once it has been determined that section 361.5(b)(6) applies, “ ‘ “the general rule favoring reunification is replaced by a legislative assumption that offering services would be an unwise use of governmental resources. [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.]” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227 (William B.); in accord, A.G., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 281.) Thus, under section 361.5, subdivision (c)(2), “[t]he court shall not order reunification for a parent . . . described in [section 361.5(b)(6)] unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).) “The burden is on the parent to . . . show that reunification would serve the best interests of the child.” (William B., at p. 1227; in accord, A.G., at p. 281.) 16  B. Standard of Review On a challenge to the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services, we apply the substantial evidence standard. We do so bearing in mind that the court’s decision must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654.) “In so doing, we presume ‘in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order.’ ” (In re G.L. (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164 (G.L.).) Our role is not to reweigh the evidence or to make credibility determinations. (A.A. v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 237, 242.) C. Analysis Here, the juvenile court found during the jurisdiction/disposition hearing that Father committed “severe sexual abuse” against N.K., A.K. and D.K., based upon “clear and convincing evidence.” The court further found bypassing reunification services for Father was appropriate under section 361.5(b)(6), based upon a determination that offering Father services was not in the best interests of L.K., L.S.K. and V.K. Father impliedly concedes that the bypass provision, section 361.5(b)(6), is applicable in this case. Father, however, argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that reunification services for Father were not in the best interests of L.K., L.S.K. and V.K. by clear and convincing evidence. He notes that the severe sexual abuse findings relate to children who are no longer minors and not the 17 subject of this dependency proceeding. He also argues that the juvenile court failed to make individualized child specific best interest findings required by section 361.5(b)(6) and section 361.5, subdivision (i). The best interest determination requires consideration of (1) the parent’s current efforts, (2) the parent’s fitness, (3) the parent’s history, (4) the seriousness of the problem that led to the dependency, (5) the strength of the parent-child and caretaker-child bonds, and (6) the child’s need for stability and continuity. (A.G., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 281.) “A best interests finding also requires a likelihood that reunification services will succeed. [Citation.] ‘In other words, there must be some “reasonable basis to conclude” that reunification is possible before services are offered to a parent who need not be provided them. [Citation.]’ ” (Ibid., quoting William B., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1228-1229.) Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s determination that offering reunification services to Father is not in L.K., L.S.K., and V.K.’s best interests. The court found Father committed severe sexual abuse of N.K., A.K., and D.K., relying on N.K.’s disclosure, confirmed by Mother, and Father’s admissions to Mother. The court noted N.K’s abuse occurred from approximately age five to 12, that D.K. was anally penetrated on two occasions, and that A.K. was raped a minimum of three times. Father has not challenged the jurisdictional findings against him. Thus, it is undisputed that Father abused N.K., A.K. and D.K. when they were minors and his three youngest children are at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to his conduct. It is 18 not just actual harm with the three minor children, but a risk of harm as well, given the lack of protectiveness and long-term abuse. During the disposition portion of the hearing, the court noted it shall not order services unless clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the best interest of the children under section 361.5(c)(2). The record indicates the court considered the factors in section 361.5, subdivision (i) before it determined that providing Father with reunification services would not benefit the three minor children. The first factor to be considered is the specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. (§ 361.5, subd. (i)(1).) Here, the juvenile court found that N.K.’s statements regarding the years of sexual abuse she experienced were credible and were corroborated by Mother and Father’s admissions. The court referred to N.K.’s statement that Father forced oral copulation on her, manually stimulated her, and anally penetrated her with his penis. The court also noted N.K.’s disclosure that she remembered Father bringing D.K. into his bedroom, where Father attempted to “engage” both D.K. and N.K. in group sex. The second factor is the circumstances under which the abuse or harm was inflicted on the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. (§ 361.5, subd. (i)(2).) The evidence indicates Father subjected his children N.K., D.K. and A.K. to repeated sexual abuse when they were minors. The court cited N.K.’s assertion that her mother worked on weekends and “that was when the majority of the abuse occurred,” but Father “also 19 forced [N.K.] to give him ‘blowjobs’ when the mother would run errands.” The court noted that Father tried to inflict similar abuse on D.K., and found it “clear” that “abuse was occurring in the household[.]” The court also found credible Mother’s initial statements to the social worker and noted “the mother admitted the father confessed to molesting [A.K.], [D.K.] and [N.K.]. She stated the father anally penetrated [D.K.] with his penis on two occasions and quit when [D.K.] couldn’t figure out how to give him a blowjob.” The court explained Mother stated Father then ignored D.K. The court also noted Father admitted to N.K. that he sexually abused A.K. until the child was 18 years old. The court explained, when Mother was questioned about A.K., Mother “stated the father confessed to raping [A.K.] at least three times but felt bad because of her severe autism and stopped abusing her.” The juvenile court must also consider the severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. (§361.5, subd. (i)(3).) Here, the impact of Father’s horrific abuse on D.K. and A.K. cannot be adequately measured because they are autistic and nonverbal. The juvenile court, however, found that Father abused his three children in the family home over many years, and that the three victims continued to suffer emotional trauma. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. N.K. “expressed deep remorse for [A.K.],” and “due to [A.K.]’s continuous hitting of her eyes” the child “eventually lost her vision.” The court also noted that “Mother also confirmed at one point that she knew the abuse stopped to [A.K.] and [D.K.] as they no longer avoided [Father] and tried to be around him.” Father also manipulated N.K.’s 20 emotions to prevent her from disclosing the abuse to anyone after she told Mother. The court explained that after N.K. disclosed the abuse to Mother, the next day “the mother told [N.K.] the father was about to kill himself.” N.K. also “explained because she thought she was the only victim, the sexual abuse had ended years before, and due to her conditioned desire to keep the family together above all else, she told her mother she did not want anything to happen to the father.” N.K. also said “the fear of being the cause of the family disbanding kept her from fully disclosing the abuse to anyone (other than the mother and father) to this date.” The fourth factor the court must consider is whether there is any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian. (§ 361.5, subd. (i).) Here, Father subjected his biological children N.K., D.K., and A.K. to years of rape, sodomy, and forced oral copulation. The court noted that Father abused N.K. from the age of five through age 12. The court also pointed out that Father anally penetrated D.K. on two occasions, and he raped A.K. at least three times. Moreover, the family has a long history with child protective services in multiple counties involving 11 prior referrals for general neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse of the children between 2004 and 2023. The fifth factor the court must consider is the likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision. (§ 361.5, subd. (i)(5).) The juvenile court here found it unlikely that the children could return to Father’s care without continuing supervision even if Father received 12 months of reunification services. The court noted that in therapy 21 Father demonstrated a limited ability to apply socially normative principals to his own actions and displayed “cognitive rigidity” when discussing self-referential topics. Although the court noted that Father displayed “greater cognitive flexibility” when discussing general or hypothetical scenarios and was generally cooperative, “[t]his discrepancy has limited opportunities for deeper therapeutic expiration of accountability, impact and behavioral health change.” The court noted that Father’s therapist Dr. Kordus was “concerned with a pattern of incongruent and restricted affect which may indicate emotional blunting, suppression or compartmentalization [. . .] which could impact his ability to assess and process emotional experiences and may limit his capacity for empathy and self deflection.” The court also highlighted the concern that Father inconsistently applied moral and safety related standards particularly when considering the perspective of vulnerable individuals. The sixth factor the court must consider is “[w]hether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent . . . .” (§ 361.5, subd. (i)(6).) The court noted it was taking into consideration that L.K., L.S.K., and V.K. wished to be reunified, but the court concluded this was outweighed by the risk of harm to the children, which supported denying Father reunification services. The court found that services would not benefit the children based on the specific acts of severe sexual abuse and the circumstances under which abuse was inflicted. The court noted the abuse occurred “in the family home as to three children for many years” and “the emotional trauma suffered by all three victims continues to this day.” The court also considered whether the children could be safely 22 returned home without further supervision in 12 months but found it was not in the children’s best interests due to the severity of the sexual abuse Father inflicted on the children’s siblings and Father’s inability to benefit from services as noted by Father’s therapist. The record indicates L.K., L.S.K., and V.K. would not benefit from providing Father reunification services. Father argues that reunification services were in L.K., L.S.K., and V.K.’s best interests because they all wanted to return home, they all described feeling “ ‘safest and happiest’ with their parents,” they described Father as kind and supportive, there was no evidence Father ever abused L.K., L.S.K., and V.K., and the abused children were now adults. Father maintains that if he received reunification services addressing the sexual abuse allegations, he would likely succeed in reunifying with his three minor children. But Father also held a parental role as to N.K., A.K., and D.K., and there was substantial evidence he committed long-term, severe sexual abuse against N.K., A.K., and D.K., causing them serious emotional trauma. In addition, as previously noted, Mother and Father had a chil