Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD07-3102A
McGuiness, P.J.
On December 7, 2007, J.C.R. (Father) appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders finding that his daughter, J.R., is at substantial risk of suffering harm or sexual abuse due to Father’s sexual abuse of J.R.’s cousin (the first appeal). We recently resolved that appeal, affirming the orders in a nonpublished opinion. (Dec. 30, 2008, A120034.)
To obtain context, maintain consistency and economize judicial resources, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion and the record in the first appeal. (See Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a); see In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 674, fn. 3.)
At an April 10, 2008, six-month status review hearing, while the first appeal was still pending, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement that the case be dismissed with exit orders giving legal and physical custody of J.R. to her mother, and prohibiting Father from living in the family home or seeing J.R. other than under the mother’s direct supervision. Father’s attorney stated, “I just want to add, I think [Father] does have a pending appeal from the [jurisdictional and dispositional orders] but I don’t think that’s going to be affected by the dismissal. That’s up to him and his appellate attorney.” Based on the parties’ agreement, the court terminated dependency jurisdiction and issued exit orders establishing a family court proceeding and making custody and visitation orders.
In the instant appeal, Father appeals from the exit orders. He challenges the exit orders only on the ground that if he prevails in his first appeal and the jurisdictional and dispositional orders are reversed, the exit orders must also be reversed. He states: “Th[e] jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders, which are the subject of appellant’s pending related appeal [the first appeal], are also the sole legal basis for the orders the court made at the six-month status review hearing, which are the subject of the current appeal. [Citation.] [¶] Therefore, to the extent that this Court concludes in the related appeal [the first appeal] . . . that the jurisdictional findings and/or dispositional orders were error and must be reversed, it must also reverse the exit orders made at the six-month review . . . .” Because we rejected the contentions Father made in his first appeal and affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, we reject his contention in the instant appeal that the exit orders must also be reversed.
Disposition
The exit orders are affirmed.
We concur: Siggins, J., Jenkins, J.