In re T.D. CA2/4

background, as the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 The operative petition alleged that father, over an approximately one-month period, communicated over the internet with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old child. He solicited the ostensible child to send him “sexually explicit photographs” and to engage in “illicit sexual acts.” On “multiple occasions,” father requested a meeting “with the intent to have sexual intercourse” and sent sexually explicit photographs to his target, including a photo of his erect penis. This activity led to father’s arrest for violation of Penal Code, section 288, subdivision (a)(1), endangered T.D., and placed her at substantial risk of harm and sexual abuse. T.D. initially was detained from father, but she returned to his home in October 2023 under an extended visit arrangement that was conditioned on father’s enrolling in a parenting class and…