In re C.B. CA2/8

Filed 5/21/14 In re C.B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.B., a Person Coming Under the B249614 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK96389)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.B.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

In this dependency appeal, J.B., the alleged father of C.B., contends the trial court erred in sustaining the allegations of the petition that he has a history of illicit drug use and a criminal history involving drug use, thereby endangering C.B.’s health and safety. He does not challenge the jurisdictional findings as to S.T., C.B.’s mother, and acknowledges that his jurisdictional challenge is therefore nonjusticiable. Nevertheless, he asks this court to exercise its discretion to consider his appeal, reasoning that the jurisdictional findings in this case may prejudice him in an ongoing dependency case concerning another child. Because father is merely an alleged father, he lacks standing to challenge the dependency court’s jurisdictional findings. Moreover, father’s jurisdictional challenge is without merit, because the jurisdictional findings as to father are supported by substantial evidence, and the unchallenged jurisdictional finding that mother’s substance abuse placed C.B. at risk of harm renders father’s challenge to the jurisdictional findings related to his own substance abuse and criminal history nonjusticiable. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and then five-year-old C.B. came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services on September 23, 2012, when mother tested positive for amphetamine and benzodiazepine at the birth of daughter S.G., who is not at issue in this appeal. The department initially filed a nondetained petition, but when mother tested positive for amphetamines, C.B. was detained. Father’s whereabouts were unknown, and mother reported that father did not have a relationship with C.B. C.B. referred to her mother’s roommate, C.F., as “papa.” Mother later reported that father was incarcerated. He had never provided for C.B. Mother and father were never a couple, and never lived together; father had been mother’s neighbor. He was “in and out of [C.B.’s] life.” According to mother, father used methamphetamine, but had been sober for 10 months. Father was sober because he was suffering from kidney failure, and could not receive dialysis if he was using drugs.