In re L.G. CA2/8

Filed 7/29/13 In re L.G. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the B244194 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. No. CK92174)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marilyn Mordetzky, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

Appellant S.G. (father) appeals from the juvenile court‟s jurisdiction and disposition orders adjudging father‟s three minor children with C.B. (mother) to be dependents of the court and removing them from parental custody. Father challenges only one of the jurisdictional findings, namely the allegation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), regarding storage of his medical marihuana.1 Father contends there is no substantial evidence supporting the determination he improperly stored his medical marijuana in a manner accessible to the children. Father also challenges that portion of the dispositional orders directing him to participate in random drug testing. Father‟s arguments are unavailing. Father‟s jurisdictional challenge is nonjusticiable because the court declared the three children dependents of the court based on multiple findings concerning both mother‟s and father‟s conduct, such that jurisdiction over the children would remain proper even without the challenged allegations. Further, we find no exceptional circumstances warrant our discretionary review. Father forfeited his challenge to the dispositional order by expressly consenting to participate in drug testing. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2012, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a referral on the Child Protection Hotline that three minor children, L.G., M.G., and U.G. (the children), were at risk of harm in mother‟s home because mother regularly suffers from epileptic seizures, was abusing methamphetamine, and was allowing her then-boyfriend, who was a reported drug dealer and had threatened to kill mother in front of the children, to live in the home. A social worker from the Department visited mother‟s home on April 11, 2012. On arrival, the social worker noted mother appeared to be in pain and walked very