In re Jorge D. CA2/1

Filed 4/28/16 In re Jorge D. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re JORGE D., A Person Coming Under B267446 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK10248)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JORGE D. (Father), Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Annabelle G. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

The juvenile court sustained a petition in which the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the department) alleged Jorge D., age seven, was put at risk of physical harm by Angelica Z.’s (mother’s) failure to protect him from her father and brother. The juvenile court detained the minor from mother and placed him with Jorge D., Sr. (father), the noncustodial parent, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and 361.2, subdivisions (a) and (b)(3), retaining jurisdiction.1 Father challenges the court’s order declining to terminate jurisdiction after placement, contending no evidence supported continuing jurisdiction. We conclude substantial evidence supports the order, and therefore affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Mother and Jorge D. lived with mother’s extended family, including her brother and father (hereafter grandfather). On April 3, 2015, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which had been surveilling grandfather for some time, obtained a warrant and searched the house, finding a loaded AK-47 rifle on the floor in grandfather’s bedroom, two and a half ounces of heroin, half a gram of methamphetamines, 50 unknown narcotic pills, and 20 marijuana plants (grown by permit), all within easy access of the child. Grandfather and mother’s brother were arrested for narcotics distribution. The department detained Jorge D. and immediately released him to father, who was divorced from mother and shared legal and physical custody of the child. There has never been any question about suitability of Jorge D.’s placement with father. Father had no criminal or child welfare history. He was steadily employed and lived in a stable living arrangement with his mother and sister. He and mother were on good terms, and he paid child support and shared custody of Jorge D. through an informal agreement. DCFS was of the opinion that father had a “strong protective capacity” and worked well with mother in “the best interest” of the child. Father had no knowledge of or involvement with mother’s family’s issues, and agreed to allow mother visitation.