In re E v. L. CA2/8

Filed 3/25/21 In re E.V.-L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.V.-L., a Person Coming B305523 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06381A) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Edgar V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Dismissed. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ The Department removed infant E.V.-L. from her mother’s custody after mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at E.V.-L.’s birth. The Department alleged as bases for jurisdiction that mother abused drugs, preventing her from properly caring for the child; that mother had failed to reunite with a previous child; and that father Edgar V. was a daily user of marijuana, preventing him from properly caring for the child. The juvenile court sustained each allegation and detained E.V.-L. Father appeals the jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to himself but does not challenge the jurisdictional or dispositional orders relating to mother. Because father’s contentions, even if meritorious, would not justify a reversal of the court’s jurisdictional order or the grant of any effective relief, we decline to address them and dismiss the appeal. I The Department received a referral regarding E.V.-L. when mother refused to give a urine sample for a drug test at E.V.-L.’s birth. Mother had tested positive for amphetamines at the birth of a child three years earlier and failed to reunify with that child due to substance abuse issues. When mother ultimately provided a sample, it was positive for amphetamines. Department social workers visited mother in the hospital to discuss the positive test result. Mother admitted to using marijuana but denied using amphetamines, claiming the positive result was due to medication taken while she was in the hospital. Further analysis of the sample later confirmed the presence of both amphetamine and methamphetamine.