In re A.C. CA2/8

Filed 1/21/14 In re A.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the B249179 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Sup. Ct. No. CK97833)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Eva E. Chick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Appellant G.F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders adjudging her minor daughter (A.C.) a dependent of the juvenile court. Mother challenges only the jurisdictional finding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) 1 as it relates to her, but not as to Alphonso C. (father). Mother contends the amended jurisdictional finding fails to state a basis upon which dependency jurisdiction can be based, and is not supported by substantial evidence. Mother also challenges the disposition orders directing her to participate in individual counseling and attend parenting classes. Mother’s arguments are unavailing. The jurisdictional allegation is both facially adequate and supported by substantial evidence. As for the disposition orders, mother failed to object and therefore forfeited her contentions, but the disposition orders were nonetheless well within the juvenile court’s broad discretion. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services detained A.C. after she reported to a school counselor (as well as to a deputy sheriff called to the school) that father had tried to choke her and threw her cell phone at her head, and she was afraid to return home. The Department social worker spoke with mother by telephone from her residence in Fresno. Mother told the social worker she had sent A.C. to live with her father a couple of months earlier. Mother said she would not take A.C. back into her home, that no family members in Fresno would take her (she also refused to provide any contact information for relatives), and that the Department should “go ahead” and detain A.C. in foster care. The Department filed a petition stating allegations of physical abuse by father (§ 300, subd. (a)), and failure to protect by both mother and father (§ 300, subd. (b)). Pending the detention hearing, A.C. was placed in foster care.