In re Patrick R. CA1/2

Filed 12/20/13 In re Patrick R. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re PATRICK R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137028 v. (San Mateo County NORA R., Super. Ct. No. JV82476) Defendant and Appellant.

Nora R., the mother of Patrick R., filed an omnibus notice of appeal purporting to appeal from a number of orders generated by the juvenile court. Only the final dispositional order, which is among the orders specified in the notice, is appealable. (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 624.) The sole claim of error appellant presents is that substantial evidence does not support one of the juvenile court’s two jurisdictional findings, specifically, the finding that Patrick was a minor described within subdivision (c) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1

1 Subsequent references to a specific subdivision will be understood as addressed to the subdivisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.

1

Respondent San Mateo County Human Services Agency argues we need not reach the merits of appellant’s claim because it is moot in light of the return of Patrick to appellant’s custody. We could conclude the appeal is moot, but we choose not to do so.2 Respondent then argues that appellant’s argument, even if we conclude it has merit, would not necessarily produce a reversal of the dispositional order because there would still be another jurisdictional finding—that Patrick was also within subdivision (b) of section 300—which appellant does not contest, and this other finding would by itself suffice to support the assertion of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773; In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202.) Thus, even if appellant persuades us that there is no substantial subdivision (c) evidence, the subdivision (b) evidence would still require affirmance of the dispositional order. This is, in effect, another mootness argument, and therefore covered by our decision to proceed with the merits. We do so because there is a common thread to the two findings, and appellant’s claim should be addressed. Patrick was found to come within subdivisions (b) and (c), which provide in pertinent part: “Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: “[¶] . . . [¶] “(b) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent