In re I.Z. CA2/5

Filed 9/23/25 In re I.Z. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.Z., a Person Coming Under the B339381 Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 24CCJP01080A)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody and Keilana Truong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over (then) four-year-old I.Z. (Minor) after sustaining allegations that Father was a daily abuser of marijuana, previously used and was under the influence of marijuana while caring for Minor, exposed Minor to firearms, and disobeyed law enforcement commands while with Minor—thereby exposing him to potential and actual violence. Father asks us to decide whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s jurisdiction finding.

I. BACKGROUND This dependency case originated in early April 2024, after the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral reporting Father had been arrested on suspicion of raping a woman.1 The woman reported she met Father at a taco stand, she smoked fentanyl and Father used cocaine, and Father subsequently raped her in the front seat of his car. When law enforcement later located Father’s car outside the home where he lived with Minor and Minor’s mother (Mother), Father walked out of the residence, saw the police, and ran back inside. Father thereafter refused to come outside as directed by law enforcement. At some point, Father took Minor to their neighbor’s home (unbeknownst to the officers on scene, apparently) and then returned to the family home and refused to exit for an additional period of time. During that time, Father