In Re Jonathan B.

California Court of Appeal Mar 31, 1992 No. G010985Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile dependency judgment may be affirmed if the evidence supports the decision on any one of several grounds, and that reversal is not required simply because one of multiple findings is unsupported by evidence.

Issues

Whether a dependency order must be reversed if not all statutory grounds relied upon by the juvenile court are supported by sufficient evidence.
Whether the court should reach constitutional challenges to a statute when the case can be decided on sufficiency of the evidence grounds.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The reviewing court may affirm a juvenile court judgment if the evidence supports the decision on any one of several grounds”

“We do not read In re Carmaleta B. to require reversal and remand for redetermination if one or more of several findings made by the juvenile court is unsupported by substantial evidence.”

“We uphold judgments if they are correct for any reason”

5 Cal.App.4th 873 (1992) 7 Cal. Rptr.2d 277 In re JONATHAN B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

SHERRY B., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. G010985. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

March 31, 1992. [874] COUNSEL

Lawrence Salisbury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Terry C. Andrus, County Counsel, and Michelle Ben-Hur, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[*]]

[875] OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

Sherry B. appeals from an order declaring her son, Jonathan B., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c), and (i).[1] She contends subdivision (c) is unconstitutionally vague and in violation of a number of guarantees of the United States and California Constitutions. She further contends the court's order is unsupported by sufficient evidence as to any ground. Because we decide the case on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence to support the dependency orders under subdivision (b), we do not reach the constitutional issues in regard to subdivision (c). (1) The reviewing court "should not decide constitutional questions unless compelled to do so." (People v. Marsh (1984) 36 Cal.3d 134, 144 [202 Cal. Rptr. 92, 679 P.2d 1033].)

I, II[*]

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .

In Re Jonathan B.

AI Brief

SONENSHINE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

NOTES

AI Brief