In re Rozlyn G. CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Nov 15, 2022 No. B314519Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the mother's challenge to specific jurisdictional findings was non-justiciable because other unchallenged findings supported the dependency jurisdiction, and the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering drug testing.

Issues

Is a challenge to specific jurisdictional findings justiciable when other independent findings support the court's jurisdiction?
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by ordering the mother to participate in drug testing as part of the disposition plan?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Dorothy’s limited challenge to the jurisdiction findings is not justiciable, and the order requiring her to drug test was well within the juvenile court’s discretion”

“The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly.”

Filed 11/15/22 In re Rozlyn G. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re ROZLYN G., a Person B314519 Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02576A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DOROTHY P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steff Padilla, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________ Dorothy P., the mother of six-year-old Rozlyn G., appeals two of four jurisdictional findings made by the juvenile court and that portion of the disposition order requiring her to drug test, but not the finding that she and Colby G., Rozlyn’s presumed father, had a history of domestic violence that endangered the child or the order declaring Rozlyn a dependent child of the court and removing Rozlyn from her parents’ care and custody. Dorothy’s limited challenge to the jurisdiction findings is not justiciable, and the order requiring her to drug test was well within the juvenile court’s discretion even if Dorothy’s frequent use of marijuana did not place Rozlyn at substantial risk of serious physical harm. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Sustained Dependency Petition and Disposition Orders On July 21, 2021 the juvenile court sustained in part an interlineated second amended petition pursuant to Welfare and 1 Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect), making four jurisdiction findings. First, the court found Dorothy had mental and emotional problems, including bipolar depression, that rendered her incapable of providing Rozlyn with

In re Rozlyn G. CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

DOROTHY P.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

AI Brief