Filed 4/28/17 In re D.N. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re D.N., Jr., et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
B278317

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.N., Sr.,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. DK19471)
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Frank Menetrez, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis,
Assistant County Counsel, David Michael Miller, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * **
2
Appellant D.N., Sr. (father) appeals from the juvenile
court’s October 3, 2016 jurisdiction and disposition orders
adjudging his young sons (D.N., Jr., and J.N.) dependents of the
court. Father challenges only the jurisdictional finding pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)1 as
it relates to him, but not as to A.S. (mother). Father contends the
jurisdictional findings as to him are not supported by substantial
evidence and asks us to reverse the judgment. Father’s briefs are
silent regarding the court’s disposition orders.
Father does not contend there is no substantial evidence
that mother’s methamphetamine addiction and abuse put the
very young children at substantial risk of harm. To the contrary,
he acknowledges in his opening brief, “Nearly everyone involved
in the case agreed [m]other had a serious methamphetamine
problem and acted aggressively when under the influence.
Though she had not previously injured a baby, it was reasonable
to view her actions as posing risk to the boys. But that was
[m]other’s issue. Father’s problem was to protect the children,
which the evidence demonstrated he was ready, willing, and able
to do.”
Father’s arguments are unavailing. The jurisdictional
allegations are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The sustained petition includes allegations that mother has
a history of, and is a current abuser of, amphetamine and
methamphetamine, which renders her incapable of providing

1 All further undesignated section references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
3
regular care for the young children, and that father failed to
protect the children despite knowledge of mother’s illicit drug
abuse.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (Department) received a referral from a
reporting party who had seen mother walking on the street at
3:00 a.m. with then one-year-old D.N., Jr., without a sweater.
The reporting party said mother was probably under the
influence of methamphetamine because she had abused it since
she was 18 and she was “always” on it. The reporting party said
when mother and father had resided together, mother abused
methamphetamine in the presence of the children. Father kept
leaving the children with mother when he went to work, placing
the children in danger due to her constant drug use.
During the Department’s initial investigation, both mother
and father denied any history of drug abuse or mental health
issues, although mother later admitted to a history of, and
current use of, methamphetamine, and that she also suffered
from depression. Mother told father she was clean even when she
tested positive for the Department. Mother and father agreed to
a voluntary family maintenance plan by which mother would
enroll in a substance abuse program. The children were not to be
left alone with her. However, father continued to leave the
children alone with mother for extended periods of time, mother
tested dirty twice and missed several drug tests. Father
acknowledged mother had a drug problem and needed to go to
rehab while at the same time he claimed he believed mother was
clean because she told him she was. When asked why father
believed mother was clean, he said, “Because she sleeps a lot and
eats a lot.” Father also told a social worker that “mother is very
4
aggressive as she bangs on the doors and windows and says she
is sober and that she is being monitored.” The police “had to
come out but mother didn’t get arrested.”
The Department detained the children, after which mother
had minimal contact with the Department and continued to miss
drug tests. The children were released to father on the condition
they reside in the home of paternal grandmother, that mother not
be allowed in the home, and paternal grandmother provide
childcare when father was working. Mother became homeless,
staying with friends. The Department reported to the court that
“father appears to now understand that he cannot allow the
mother to have unmonitored contact with the children.” But, it
appeared to the social worker that “father is naïve and minimized
[mother’s] history of substance abuse,” believing she mostly
needed mental health counseling as opposed to substance abuse
treatment.
After sustaining an amended petition, the court ordered the
children to be placed with father under the supervision of the
Department, which was ordered to provide family
maintenance/preservation services. The court ordered that father
participate in individual counseling to address substance abuse
awareness.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The focus of dependency proceedings is on the protection of
minor children. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491-
1492.) To acquire jurisdiction over a child, a juvenile court need
only “find that one parent’s conduct has created circumstances
triggering section 300.” (Id. at p. 1491.) “[I]t is commonly said
that a jurisdictional finding involving one parent is ‘ “good
5
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.” ’ [Citation.]” (Id. at
p. 1492.) “ ‘This accords with the purpose of a dependency
proceeding, which is to protect the child, rather than prosecute
the parent.’ [Citation.]” (In re X.S. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1154,
1161.) As a result, “an appellate court may decline to address the
evidentiary support for any remaining jurisdictional findings
once a single finding has been found to be supported by the
evidence.” (In re I.A., supra, at p. 1492.)
Father’s attack on the jurisdictional findings does not
contest the findings as to mother. Instead, father’s brief
acknowledges the substantial evidence of mother’s serious
methamphetamine problem and aggressive behavior when under
the influence, and of the risk of harm she posed to their very
young children. Even if we considered reversing the
jurisdictional findings as to father, the juvenile court would
retain jurisdiction over the children based on the sustained, and
unchallenged, allegations against mother. Therefore, father’s
attack on the jurisdictional findings relative to his conduct alone
is nonjusticiable. (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 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.”].)
We recognize that some appellate courts have addressed
the merits of a jurisdictional challenge by one parent despite the
absence of any challenge to the jurisdictional findings as to the
other parent. The usual reason given by the courts is that the
jurisdictional findings served as the basis for a challenged
6
dispositional order removing a child from an allegedly nonoffending,
custodial parent. Here, however, the children remain
in father’s custody, and father does not challenge any
dispositional order of the court.
We briefly note the record contains sufficient evidence
supporting the court’s jurisdictional finding as to father. “ ‘On
appeal from an order making jurisdictional findings, we must
uphold the court’s findings unless, after reviewing the entire
record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and
drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we
determine there is no substantial evidence to support the
findings. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182
Cal.App.4th 73, 84.)
The basic facts in the record summarized above are
substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings that father
failed to protect his young sons and that dependency jurisdiction
was necessary to protect them from substantial danger.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders of October 3, 2016 are affirmed.
GRIMES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
FLIER, J.