In re N.M. CA2/8
Filed 6/29/16 In re N.M. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N.M. et al., Persons Coming Under B267675 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DK12187) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
G.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Mitchell Keiter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________________
SUMMARY G.H., the father in this dependency case, appeals from the court’s dispositional order. He challenges the court’s finding of jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), but does not contest the court’s other jurisdictional finding, based on the same conduct, under section 300, subdivision (b).1 Father also challenges the court’s dispositional order, insofar as it required him to take “10 random drug tests,” contending he had no “notice of, and opportunity to counter” the order, and there was no substantial evidence he had an illicit drug problem. We decline to review father’s jurisdictional claim, because a single jurisdictional finding supported by substantial evidence renders a challenge to other findings moot. We also conclude the dependency court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered father to take random drug and alcohol tests. FACTS Father and mother B.G. lived together with their son, N.M., who was born in 2012, and mother’s two older girls. The family came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) on May 5, 2015, when father was arrested in the wake of a domestic violence incident. According to the police report, father had been drinking with a friend, and mother and father had a heated argument. Father “threw objects inside the master bathroom and broke the medicine cabinet mirror,” and punched mother on the left side of her face, causing bruising. The two girls heard the arguing, but said they did not witness the incident. N.M. was too young to make a statement. The police report stated that both girls “appeared scared and did not want to talk.” Father said this about the incident: “I can’t remember. I was drunk. She’s [mother] always arguing with me like that. She was bugging the Hell out of me man. I was taking a shower, I was telling her, ‘Get outta here!’ She changed the Wi-Fi passcode
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)