In re M.L. CA2/8

Filed 5/7/13 In re M.L. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.L. et al., Persons Coming Under B244016 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK94052)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Mother J.A. appeals from the juvenile court‟s jurisdictional order adjudging her two young dependents of the court, and the disposition order removing the children, G.L. and M.L., from her custody and ordering monitored visits, participation in a drug rehabilitation program with weekly random drug testing, and completion of a parenting course. Mother contends that substantial evidence did not support the court‟s jurisdictional findings regarding her drug abuse. Mother contends there was no credible, present evidence supporting the juvenile court‟s finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) that she used drugs or endangered her children, and accordingly, we should reverse the court‟s jurisdictional order. This argument is unavailing. The court declared the children to be dependents based on the conduct of both mother and the children‟s father, who pled “no contest” to the allegations of abuse and admitted being a current user of methamphetamine, and caring for the children while under the influence. Father has not appealed dependency jurisdiction. Thus, mother‟s jurisdictional challenge is nonjusticiable. This is not an exceptional case that warrants our discretionary review of the facts to determine whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction on the basis of mother‟s own conduct. However, in deciding mother‟s challenge to the dispositional orders, we determine substantial evidence supports them, and the same evidence supports jurisdiction. The juvenile court‟s dispositional orders are reasonable under the circumstances, and mother is entitled to no relief. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a referral in May 2012 that the children, ages one and two years, were generally neglected and emotionally abused based on mother‟s and father‟s drug use and unstable housing. The family drifted from shelters to motels. The paternal grandmother and paternal aunt had previously let the family live with them in their homes, but both paternal relatives had to ask the family to leave because of father‟s temper, anger and aggression toward mother. The parents constantly traumatized the children by arguing and fighting in their presence.