Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. M.C.

Filed 12/26/14 In re J.C. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.C., A Person Coming Under the B255676 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. CK60359) AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Affirmed.

Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Father M.C. appeals from the juvenile court orders taking jurisdiction of his son J.C. and placing him in foster care. We affirm because the court assumed jurisdiction in part based on misconduct by the mother and because substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional and dispositional findings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

On March 12, 2014, mother C.M. pled no contest to a petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that asked the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over three-month-old J.C. because the child was born with methamphetamine in his system and mother had a long history of drug abuse. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Father submitted on the petition based on the various DCFS reports and other documentary evidence admitted in evidence. The trial court assumed jurisdiction of J.C. based on J.C.’s positive test, mother’s drug abuse, and on father’s failure to protect J.C. from mother’s drug abuse. At an April 7, 2014 dispositional hearing, the trial court denied reunification services for mother, placed the child in foster care, and ordered reunification services for father. The trial court declined to place the child with either father or paternal grandparents based on father’s and mother’s previous history with the DCFS, which included incidents of domestic violence and drug use and questions about father’s mental health. Father contends the trial court erred because: (1) there was insufficient evidence that he knew or could have done anything to stop mother’s drug use during her pregnancy; and (2) there was no evidence he posed a risk of harm to J.C.