In re L.B. CA3

Filed 8/19/14 In re L.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re L.B., JR., et al., Persons Coming Under the C075696 Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD229532, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD229533, JD229534, JD229535, JD229936, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD233798)

v.

B.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

L.B. (father) and B.B. (mother) appeal from the judgment entered by the juvenile court as to minors J.B., K.B., C.B., L.B., Jr., P.B., and A.B. declaring the minors dependents of the court and removing them from the parents’ custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare

1

and Institutions Code.) They attack one out of the court’s three jurisdictional findings. Since the court’s other findings justified its exercise of jurisdiction, the parents’ contention does not raise any genuine jurisdictional issue. And even if the parents’ contention were correct, there is no order we could make that could have any practical effect on subsequent proceedings. We dismiss the appeal as nonjusticiable. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484 (I.A.).)

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In light of our disposition, we need not set out the history of the case in great detail. In April and July 2009, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed section 300 petitions as to all of the minors in the present case except A.B., who had not yet been born. The juvenile court sustained the petitions as amended, exercised jurisdiction over the minors, placed them in foster care, and ordered reunification services for the parents. After returning the minors to the parents’ custody in 2010, the court terminated dependency jurisdiction in May 2011. In September 2013, the Department filed new petitions as to all six minors, alleging grounds for jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). Under subdivision (a) (serious physical harm), the petitions alleged: “a-1 There is a substantial risk that the children . . . will suffer serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by the father . . . in that the father has a history of using excessive corporal punishment on the children’s sibling, J[.B.]. The acts of excessive corporal punishment include, but are not limited to[:] the father holding a knife to the child, J[.B.]’s face and threatening the children with physical bodily harm. Further, on September 17, 2013, the child, J[.B.][,] was diagnosed during his medical exam at the Children’s receiving home with a second degree burn to the left forearm, in which the