Opinion
B328421
11-20-2023
In re ANGEL Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. D.R. et al., Defendants and Appellants LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.R. Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.Z. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP04563C Marguerite Downing, Judge.
Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.R.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.Z.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
D.R. (Mother) and A.Z. (Father) appeal the termination of their parental rights with respect to their son, Angel Z. We affirm the juvenile court's order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2022 Angel Z. was declared a dependent child of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and he was removed from his parents' custody. In case No. B319424, Father appealed, challenging the jurisdictional findings, the order removing Angel Z. from Father's custody, and the adequacy of the inquiry pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). (In re Angel Z. (Aug. 16, 2023, B319424 [nonpub. opn.].)
On April 6, 2023, while case No. B319424 was pending in this court, the juvenile court terminated Mother and Father's parental rights over Angel Z. The instant matter is the parents' appeal from that order.
After the parents filed their opening briefs in this appeal but before the Department of Children and Family Services filed its respondent's brief, this court filed its decision in the first appeal, case No. B319424. We affirmed the jurisdictional findings and removal order, and we found the ICWA issue moot. (In re Angel Z., supra, B319424.) Father did not petition the California Supreme Court for review, and the opinion in case No. 319424 is now final.
DISCUSSION
Father argues the termination of his parental rights must be vacated because the underlying jurisdictional findings and dispositional order were erroneous-the same issues presented in his appeal in case No. B319424. Mother joins in Father's argument and argues that reversal of the termination of parental rights order as to Father requires it be reversed as to her as well. Neither parent raises an independent challenge to the order terminating parental rights; they merely argue that the errors at the jurisdictional and dispositional stages also require that the termination order be vacated.
The parents' arguments about the termination of their parental rights in this appeal rest entirely on the errors they asserted in case No. B319424 about the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. Our decision affirming those findings and orders, which is now final, completely disposes of all issues raised in the present appeal. (See Dickinson v. Cosby (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1153 [appellate court decision, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case, precluding a party from obtaining appellate review of the same issue more than once in a single action].) We therefore affirm the order terminating parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: WILEY, J. VIRAMONTES, J.