In re Richard G. CA2/8

Filed 3/8/23 In re Richard G. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 RICHARD G., JR., et al., B318760 Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County ______________________________ Nos. 21CCJP04979A-C LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ The juvenile court sustained domestic violence and substance abuse allegations against a father, allegations he does not challenge on appeal. The court also sustained amended allegations the father does challenge, allegations he “physically abused and/or inappropriately physically disciplined” his son and “inappropriately physically disciplined” his elder daughter. The court assumed dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (a), which applies where a parent inflicts serious physical harm nonaccidentally on a child or there is a substantial risk of this harm. The court also assumed jurisdiction under subdivisions (b) and (j) based on these allegations. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. The father asks us to strike or reverse these jurisdictional findings and argues his appeal is justiciable. We assume justiciability and reach the merits. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 266, 286 [it may serve the interest of justice to review a parent’s appeal “where a parent does not challenge all jurisdictional findings, but only one finding involving particularly severe conduct”].) The parties agree we review for substantial evidence. (See In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773 (I.J.).) The father says substantial evidence is missing because he simply spanked his children, which is reasonable and legal parental discipline that does not give rise to dependency jurisdiction. (See § 300, subd. (j) [reasonable methods of parental