In re Anthony M. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal May 15, 2025 No. B337114Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the father's appeal of the dependency jurisdiction order is nonjusticiable because he failed to challenge all of the jurisdictional findings, including those regarding his failure to protect the children from the mother's abuse and substance abuse.

Issues

Whether the father's challenge to a subset of jurisdictional findings is justiciable when other unchallenged findings support the juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to review a moot appeal involving allegedly stigmatizing jurisdictional findings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the children’s mother has not appealed and father has not challenged all of the bases for the court’s exertion of jurisdiction, his challenge is not justiciable.”

““‘[D]ependency jurisdiction attaches to a child, not to his or her parent.’””

Filed 5/15/25 In re Anthony M. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re Anthony M., et al., B337114

Minors Coming Under the (Los Angeles County Juvenile Court Law, _____________________________ Super. Ct. Nos. 24CCJP00380A-C) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

Gilberto M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Syna N. Dennis, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Office of the County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

****** In this dependency appeal, Gilberto M. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order asserting dependency jurisdiction over three of his children. However, because the children’s mother has not appealed and father has not challenged all of the bases for the court’s exertion of jurisdiction, his challenge is not justiciable. We accordingly affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. The relevant family Father and D.V. (mother) married in 2014 and separated in 2018; they have three children together—namely, Anthony M. (born September 2008), Athon M. (born July 2011), and Angel M. (born July 2013). 1 At the beginning of these proceedings, all

1 Father also has two younger children from a different relationship. Those children were subject to a separate dependency proceeding and appeal following father’s arrest and an incident of domestic violence between father and the mother of those children (In re Amelia M. (Mar. 10, 2025, B337169, B339889) [nonpub. opn.]), but are not part of this appeal.

In re Anthony M. CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BAKER, J.

AI Brief