Opinion
B295643
03-10-2020
In re JAYDEN R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ENRIQUE P., Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Joseph D. MacKenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP05664) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Dismissed. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Joseph D. MacKenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
____________________
Enrique P. (Father) appeals from the jurisdictional findings and dispositional order declaring then four-month-old Jayden R. a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), based on Jayden's positive drug test for amphetamine and benzodiazepines at birth (count b-1); Candice R. (Mother's) history of substance abuse and current abuse of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and prescription medication (count b-2); and Father's failure to reunify with his three daughters from a previous relationship (count b-4). Father contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's finding his failure to reunify with his three daughters in a prior dependency case placed Jayden at risk of serious physical harm and danger (count b-4).
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) cross-appeals from the juvenile court's dismissal of count b-3, which alleged Father's long criminal history placed Jayden at risk of serious physical harm and damage. The Department contends Father's extensive criminal history and recent convictions compel a finding Father's criminal lifestyle would subject Jayden to substantial risk of serious physical harm.
Because Mother does not appeal from the jurisdictional findings and Father does not challenge the jurisdictional findings against Mother, Father's appeal and the Department's cross-appeal are nonjusticiable. We dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Referral and Detention
A day after Jayden's birth, the Department received a referral that Mother tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine during Jayden's birth. Mother reported she took methamphetamine two weeks before giving birth because, after her release from jail, she did not know where she was going to live. Mother admitted she had used methamphetamine since she was a teenager. Mother said Father was in jail, but she did not know why he was arrested. Jayden showed slight withdrawal symptoms, and his urine drug test was "presumptive positive" for amphetamines and benzodiazepines. Jayden stayed in the hospital for a week and was placed with a foster family after his discharge. Jayden was subsequently detained from Mother and Father. B. The Amended Petition
The January 8, 2019 amended petition asserted two counts against Mother. Count b-1 alleged Jayden tested positive for amphetamine and benzodiazepines at birth because of Mother's substance abuse, which endangered his physical health and safety and placed him at risk of serious physical harm and damage. Count b-2 alleged Mother had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and prescription medication. Further, Mother used illicit drugs during her pregnancy with Jayden and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine the day before his birth. Jayden required constant supervision because of his tender age, and Mother's substance abuse interfered with her ability to provide care and supervision and endangered Jayden's physical health and safety and placed him at risk of serious physical harm.
The amended petition alleged two counts against Father. Count b-3 alleged Father had a "long criminal history," including arrests and convictions of possession of controlled substance, burglary, and vehicle theft. Further, on January 8, 2018 Father was arrested for kidnapping, false imprisonment, second degree robbery, possession of a firearm, and possession of ammunition. Father's criminal history and conduct placed Jayden at risk of serious physical harm and damage. Count b-4 alleged Jayden's half-siblings, J.P., N.P., and A.P, were prior dependents of the juvenile court, and Father's failure to reunify with the half-siblings placed Jayden at risk of serious physical harm. C. The Jurisdictional and Dispositional Hearing
At the January 24, 2019 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the juvenile court sustained counts b-1 and b-2 as to Mother and count b-4 as to Father, but the court dismissed count b-3. The court declared Jayden a dependent of the court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court removed Jayden from Mother's and Father's physical custody and granted family reunification services for the parents. The court ordered Mother to participate in a drug and alcohol program with aftercare; weekly random or on-demand drug testing; a 12-step program with a court card and sponsor; a parenting program; and individual counseling to address case issues. The court granted monitored visits for Mother three times a week for three hours each visit, with the Department having discretion to liberalize visitation. The court also allowed the Department discretion to release Jayden to Mother on condition "she reside in the sober living facility and that she comply with all terms and conditions of her case plan including continuing to test and test clean."
The court ordered Father to attend a parenting program, participate in individual counseling to address case issues, and comply with his criminal court orders. The court granted Father monitored visits once a month while in custody upon medical clearance.
Father timely appealed. The Department timely cross-appealed.
DISCUSSION
Although Father contends the Department's cross-appeal is nonjusticiable because of the juvenile court's sustained jurisdictional findings as to Mother on counts b-1 and b-2, which are not challenged on appeal, Father does not address the justiciability of his appeal. Father is correct the Department's cross-appeal is nonjusticiable, but so is Father's appeal for the same reason.
"'When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.'" (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; accord, In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 896 ["'[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate'"], quoting In re Ashley B. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 309 ["[W]e need not address jurisdictional findings involving one parent where there are unchallenged findings involving the other parent."].)
An appeal is not justiciable where "no effective relief could be granted . . . , as jurisdiction would be established regardless of the appellate court's conclusions with respect to any such [challenged] jurisdictional grounds." (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 329; accord, In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490 ["An important requirement for justiciability is the availability of 'effective' relief—that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status."].) As acknowledged by Father, the juvenile court "may base jurisdiction on the actions of one or both parents." (In re H.R. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1285; accord, In re Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 308 ["'[A] jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both. More accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring [the minor] within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent.'"].)
Nevertheless, "[c]ourts may exercise their 'discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding when the finding (1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) "could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction" [citation].'" (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917, quoting In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763; accord, In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 329; In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4.)
The appeal and cross-appeal are nonjusticiable because regardless of whether we grant relief as to the allegations in counts b-3 and b-4, the juvenile court would have jurisdiction over Jayden based on the sustained jurisdictional findings as to Mother, which are not challenged on appeal. (In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773; In re M.R., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 896; In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 329; see In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1490.) In his appellate briefing, Father does not challenge the dispositional order or argue this court can still order effective relief. Moreover, Father's failure to reunify with his daughters (addressed in Father's appeal) and his criminal history (addressed in the Department's cross-appeal) can be considered in a future dependency court proceeding regardless of the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings in this case, and any future custody order would need to be based on conditions existing at that time. (See In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 330 ["[T]he substance of the spanking allegation would almost certainly be available in any future dependency or family court proceeding, regardless of any determination on our part as to whether it formed an independent basis for juvenile court jurisdiction."]; In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1494-1495 ["Father . . . fails to suggest any way in which this [jurisdictional] finding actually could affect a future dependency or family law proceeding, and we fail to find one on our own. In any future dependency proceeding, a finding of jurisdiction must be based on current conditions."].) Because the appeal and cross-appeal are nonjusticiable, we dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
FEUER, J. We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
SEGAL, J.