Where father was convicted of possession of child pornography, there was sufficient evidence to support removal of his 10-year-old daughter from the home. The Department detained the ten-year-old minor based on father’s possession of child pornography in the home. The images possessed were of young females around S.R.’s age engaged in sex acts, and one image depicted a father and prepubescent daughter engaged in sexual relations. Father sustained a felony conviction during the dependency proceedings. Subsequently, a petition was sustained and S.R. was removed. On appeal, father challenged the disposition order, arguing that mere possession of child pornography does not demonstrate that father posed a risk of harm to his daughter. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Citing In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal 4th 766. 778, the court noted that the Supreme Court held that even a low degree of probability can give rise to a substantial risk if the magnitude of the harm is potentially great. Here, there was substantial evidence of risk of great harm to S.R., no matter how low the probability, that father would sexually abuse his daughter if he is provided unfettered access to her. The evidence consisted of the nature and circumstances of the child pornography offense, which showed an interest in sexual acts with prepubescent girls, father’s lack of insight regarding his behavior, and the expert testimony regarding possession of child pornography and recidivism rates.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B300214.PDF