In re I.I.

Filed 12/3/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re I.I. et al., Persons Coming B298184 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

(Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01193) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.I.,

Defendant and Appellant;

I.I. et al., Minors,

Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.I.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Neale Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondents I.I. and M.I., Jr., Minors. _________________________________

Appellant M.I. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order and findings that his children, I.I. (born in 2016) and M.I., Jr. (born in 2017) (the Minors), are persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (f),1 based on the juvenile court’s previously sustained petition finding that the Minors’ mother, R.R. (Mother), and Father caused the death of a child through abuse or neglect. Father argues that, because the court found there was no current risk to the children, the court erred in finding that the Minors were persons described under section 300, subdivision (f). As we explain, the court is required to sustain a petition and assert jurisdiction if the facts described in section 300, subdivision (f) exist. And because it was uncontroverted that, in the earlier case, the juvenile court had found Mother and Father caused the death of their child through abuse or neglect, the court did not err in asserting jurisdiction here. Accordingly, we affirm.