In re J.F. CA6

Filed 6/30/16 In re J.F. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the H042158 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 1-15-JD-23077)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.F., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

On June 1, 2015, J.F. and his half-sister, V.G., were declared dependent children of the court and ordered into foster care, having been found to come within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c).1 J.F., father, along with T.D., the children’s mother, appeals, seeking review of a pre-disposition order requiring the children to be vaccinated. 2 Father contends that it was improper to make this order before J.F. was declared a dependent child of the court; mother joins in father’s argument. We find the issue to be moot and must therefore dismiss the appeals.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Father shares the same initials (J.F.) with one of the children. All references to J.F. are to the child.

Background V.G. 3 and J.F., then aged five years and nearly nine months respectively, were taken into protective custody by the deputy sheriffs for Santa Clara County. Mother was arrested for child endangerment because she had exposed the children to secondhand marijuana smoke and numerous safety hazards, and the children had access to marijuana, marijuana paraphernalia, rat feces, an open well in the backyard, and excessive trash and clutter throughout the home. The Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) filed a petition for each child, describing the circumstances of the children’s removal by the sheriffs and further alleging that mother continued to abuse methamphetamine and marijuana despite having completed an outpatient drug program. DFCS further alleged that the children were repeatedly being exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by father. The petition and subsequently amended petition cited section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c). In the social worker’s jurisdiction/disposition report prepared for a February 23, 2015 hearing, she noted that “[d]ue to personal beliefs,” mother and father. “do not believe in having the children vaccinated.” After the hearing was continued to March 18, 2015, the social worker submitted an addendum report in which she again noted that both mother and father were “not in agreement with the children in [sic] receiving any immunization.” At the continued hearing DFCS recommended family reunification services for mother and for each child’s father. DFCS also asked the court to order that the children receive immunizations, consistent with their doctor’s advice. Mother and father both objected. Mother’s attorney explained that mother “just does not believe in immunization, and it’s based on the research and material that she’s read regarding the