In re Y.F. CA2/8

Filed 1/15/16 In re Y.F. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Y.F., a Person Coming Under the B264365 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK98089) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.F.,

Defendant and Appellant;

Y.F., Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Michele Anne Cella, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor. **********

Father J.F. and counsel for the now one-year-old child, Y.F., appeal from jurisdiction and disposition orders removing the child from father’s care. Y.F. was four months old at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The day after Y.F. was born in December 2014, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral that mother M.M. may neglect Y.F. because she failed to reunify with her two older children due to her unresolved abuse of methamphetamine and marijuana over the course of many years. The referral did not mention father, who had been in a live-in relationship with mother for a year before Y.F. was born. The Department did not file a dependency petition until March 12, 2015. The Department did not initially recommend Y.F. be removed from her parents’ care. The Department filed an amended petition April 20, 2015, which included allegations that father had a history of marijuana and alcohol use. The Department’s report for the adjudication and disposition hearing recommended Y.F. remain with her parents with family maintenance services. But on April 23, 2015, the day of the adjudication and disposition hearing, the Department filed an ex parte application seeking to change the recommended disposition. The Department recommended Y.F. be removed from her parents’ care. The court sustained allegations that mother failed to reunify with Y.F.’s half siblings due to mother’s illicit drug use, and that father has a history of marijuana and alcohol use and currently uses marijuana which renders him incapable of providing regular care and supervision of Y.F. The court removed Y.F. from the parents’ custody, and ordered reunification services. Mother has not appealed the jurisdiction and disposition orders, and therefore, we do not consider here appellants’ arguments regarding the findings and orders concerning mother. On the other hand, the Department has not asked us to find father’s appeal is not justiciable on the basis of In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, and therefore, we consider father’s appeal on the merits.