In re J.D. CA2/4

Filed 6/24/25 In re J.D. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re J.D., a Person Coming B337807 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 23CCJP04436, 23CCJP04436A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Emery F. El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Mother Jennifer B. asserts that the juvenile court had insufficient evidence to assert jurisdiction over her one-year-old son, J., under section 300, subdivision (b). We find no error and affirm. First, we address the argument by respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that mother’s appeal is moot. DCFS notes that the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over J. based on the conduct of both mother and J.’s father. Father has not appealed, and mother does not challenge jurisdiction as it pertains to father’s actions. Thus, juvenile court jurisdiction over J. will remain despite mother’s appeal. (See, e.g., In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276 [an

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.