In Doe v. Brown (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 408, the Court explained that statutory interpretation begins with an examination of the text of a statute: "'In construing any statute, "well-established rules of statutory construction require us to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law." . "We first examine the words themselves because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. . The words of the statute should be given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be construed in their statutory context." . If the statutory language is unambiguous, "we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs."'" The Doe court also explained the principles of interpretation to be applied when considering a textually ambiguous statute: "'If ... the statutory language is ambiguous or reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, we will "examine the context in which the language appears, adopting the construction that best harmonizes the statute internally and with related statutes," and we can "'"look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part."'" .' "'"We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." .' . Further, 'We presume that the Legislature, when enacting a statute, was aware of existing related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of rules.'" (Doe, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 417-418.)