In re E.T. CA2/8

Filed 1/18/24 In re E.T. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.T. et al., Persons Coming B325450 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County Superior LOS ANGELES COUNTY Court No. 22CCJP03784C-D DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________ Four children became dependents in this case. The father of the two youngest children levels numerous attacks at the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders pertaining to him and his children. We affirm. Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. In September 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition on behalf of the four children. The children, and their ages as of this filing, are Kevin (age 16), Bridget (age 11), Esmeralda (age six), and Perla (age two). The last two are the father’s biological children. The petition asserted varied grounds for jurisdiction and pointed to conduct of the father, the mother, and the father of the two oldest children. We do not discuss this third parent further. This conduct included physical abuse of the two oldest children by the father and the mother, domestic violence between the parents, mental and emotional problems of the mother, substance abuse by both parents, and related failure to protect allegations. In November 2022, the juvenile court sustained the bulk of the allegations, declared the children dependents, removed them from parental custody after finding both parents to be custodial, and ordered reunification services. Only the father appeals. We reach the father’s jurisdictional challenges, despite the existence of unchallenged findings concerning the mother, because the findings paved the way for the challenged dispositional orders and continue to affect the father’s parental rights. (See In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276–278, 282–285; In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 237–238 (L.O.).)