Filed 12/ 3 /19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re I.I

. et al.

, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B2 98184

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SE RVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.I

.,
Defendant and Appellant ;

I.I. et al., Minors,

Respondents. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP0119 3 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Ang eles County, Mar tha A. Matthew s , Judge

. Affirmed. Megan Turkat

- Schirn , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.I

.

### 2 Mary C. Wickham , County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles

, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Responde nt Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

. Neale Gold, under appointment by the Court of App eal, for Respondent s I.I. and M.I., Jr., Minors

.

_________________________________

Appellant M.I. (Father ) challenge s the juvenil e court’s jurisdictional ord er and finding s that his children

, I.I. (born
in 2016) and M.I., Jr. (born in 2017 ) (the M inors)

, are person s described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 30 0,
subdivision (f

), 1 based on the juvenile court ’s p reviously sus t ained petition finding that t he M inors’ mother, R.R. (Mother)

, and Father
caused the death of a child through abuse or neglect

. Father argues that

, because the court found there was no current risk to the children, the court erred in find ing that the M in o rs were persons described und er section 300, subdivision (f)

. As we explain, the court is required to sustain a petition and assert jurisdiction if the
facts described in s ection 300, s ubdivision (f) exist. A nd because it
was uncontroverted that

, in the earlier case, the j uvenile co urt had
found Mother and F ather caused the death of their child through abuse or neglect , the court did not err in asserting jurisdiction here

. Accordingly, we affirm

.

1 All statutory references are to the W elfare and Ins t itutions Code.

### 3 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2

The famil y consist ed o f Father, Mother, the M in ors, the Minors’ siblings ( twins Ad.R

. and A.R. ( born in 2010 ) (collectively
the t wins ) ) and the Minor s ’ half siblings

, R.V. (born in 2006),
S.V. (born in 2007), and S.R. (born in 2013)

. 3

A

. Prior Child Welfare History

I n the summe r of 2010, Mother gave birth to the t wins

. I n November 2010, Los Angeles County Department of Childre n and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that Mother
had taken the four

- month

- old t wins to th e hospital and that
medical personnel ha d determined t hey were suffering from injuries consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. DCFS investigated and filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of
the t wins and their half sib lings

, R.V. and S.R., under section 300, subdivisions (b), (e), and (f )

, alleging t h at the t wins were suffering
from severe bra in injuries consistent with nonaccidental trauma
and that all four children were at substantial risk of harm based

on the t wins’ injuries. Twin Ad.R. died in 2011 as a result of his injuries.

2 Beca use Father’s only conte ntion is whether the court properly asserted jurisdiction, we recite only the facts necessary
to the resolution of that contention

. 3 Neither Mother nor the Minor s ’ half siblings are parties
to th e appeal. R.R . is the Mother of all of the children. Appel lant is the father of the Minors and the t wins. Mother was previously married to R.V., Sr.

, who is the father of two of the Minors’ half siblings

, R.V. and S.V

. , and is not a party to this appeal

. The father of half sibling S.R. is deceased.

### 4 The co urt detained t he children from the parents. 4 The

court s ubsequently sustained the petition

, continued the foster

care placement of the twin

, A.R., and order ed reunification services
for the family

. 5 Mother and Father f ailed to reunify with A.R.
I n 2014
, their paren t al rights to A.R. were terminated , and the foster parents adopted A.R

.

B

. Current Proceedings The parents ended their relationship. Thereafter, Mother
had a relationship with another man, which resulted in the birth
of half sibling, S.R., i n 2013

. Mothe r and Father subsequently
reunited

, and the M inors, I.I. in 2016 and M .I. in 2017 , were born as a result of that relationship

. The parents, the Minors

, and ha lf sibling S.R. lived together . H alf sibling s R.V. and S.V. periodically stayed wi th them.
On No vember 28, 2018, the family came to the attention of
DCFS again when DCFS received a referral alleging that Mother
took two

- year

- old I.I

. to the emergency room beca use she had

a vaginal rash

. Although the examining physician suspected
that t he child had v aginal herpes and thus was a possible v ictim
of sexual abuse

, s ubsequent examinations rev ealed that a yeast infection caused the rash and that the child had no signs of abuse. DCFS found no safety issues with the children other than the

conce rn relati ng to the earlier sustained petition.
T he ju venile court granted DCFS’s request for an order authorizing the remov al of the children. On February 22, 2019, DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b), (f)

, a nd (j),
on behalf of the Minors an d the ir half siblings

. The petition alleged

4 R.V. and S .V. were placed with their father.

5 Here, Father does not challenge that the prior dependency findings concerning the t wins are binding in the current proceeding.

### 5

identical counts under eac h subdivision that: I n November
2010
, Mother physically abused the children’s now dece ased
four

- month

- old sibling Ad. R. by violently shaking the child
and causing severe brain injuries ; tha t Father knew of Mother’s
abuse and fai led to protect Ad.R. ; that p arental rights to twin
A.R. had been terminated ; and that Mother’s and Father’s physical
abuse of the twins and their failure to protect placed the children

at risk of serio us physical harm

. At the February 25, 2019 dete ntion he aring, the juvenile court found a prima facie case for asserting jurisdiction based

on the findings of the earlier case and ordered the children
released to their respective parents

. In April 2019, DCFS filed

a juris diction/dispositio n report

. DCFS asses sed that the children
were at risk of substantial future harm because of the family’s prior child welfare history. DCFS recommended that the juvenile court
declare all the children dependent s of the cou rt, remov e the m from parental custo dy

, and order reun ification services and monitored
visits for the parents

. In April 2019, at the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, t he court found there was no evidence that any of
the children subject to the cu rrent pet ition had been abused

or neglected or were

, independent of the finding s of the earlier petition, at current risk of abuse or neglect. Nonetheless, the court
determined that under section 300, subdivision (f)

, it was required to sustain the petiti on if “th e chi ld’s parents or guardian caused the
dea th of a child through abuse or neglect.” And, because the court found that in the earlier action Mother and Father had caused the
death of Ad.R. through abuse and neglect, it sustained the petition

,

ass erted jur isdic tion over all the children , declared S. R. and the

### 6

Minors dependents of the court, maintained them in parental custody, and ordered Mother and Father to particip ate in services. 6
Father timely appeal ed

.

DISCUSSION Father argues that the juveni le court erred in concluding that
it was required to sustain the section 300, subdivision (f) allegation in the petition

. 7 He maintains the dependency court had the
discretion to dismiss the section 300, subdivision (f) allegation and
should ha ve done so because t here was no evidence that the Minors
had be en abused or neglected or were at risk of harm based on the
sustained allegations in the prior proceeding involving the t wins

. As we explain, the juvenile court correctly understood the extent of its leg al author ity a nd properly exercised it.
S ection 30 0 provides in pertinent part : “ A child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the cou rt: [¶]

. . . [¶] ( f) T he child’ s parent

or guardian caused the death of another child through abuse

or neglect.” (§ 300, subd. (f ).) The California Supreme C ourt in In re Ethan C. (2 012) 54 Cal.4th 610, recognized

, inter alia , that
section 300, subdiv ision (f) does not require evidence or findings
that t he particular circumstances of the child ’s fatality demonstrate a current risk of substantial harm to surviving children in the parent’s care. ( In re Ethan C

., supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 637

– 639. )

6 As to siblings, R.V. and S.V.

, the court te rminated the

case as to th em with a home

- of

- pa rents order

. T he propriety of the orders concerning R.V. and S.V. have not been challenged on appeal.

7 Father challenges only the court’s jurisdiction order; he has not asserted any error s with respect to the court’s disposition

or ders.

### 7

T he C ourt in I

n re Ethan C. acknowledged that the L egislatu re has determined that if section 300, subdivision (f) facts exist, that
is risk enough to warrant jurisdiction. ( See In re Ethan C., supra, at p. 638 [ observing that section 300, s ubdivision (f) refl e cts that

a par ent’s “n eglectful or abusive responsibilit y for a child fatality

may inherently give rise to a serious concern for the current safety
and welfare of living children under the parent’s

. . . care, and

may thereby justify the juvenile court’s i ntervention on their
b ehalf without the need for separat e evidence of findings about
the current risk of such harm” (italics omitted) ] .) Thus, e ven in
the absence of evidence of actual harm or c urrent or future risk
of harm to surviving children, the juve nile court mus t sustai n the petiti on if it finds the section 300, sub division (f) facts exist. ( See
In re Ethan C., supra, at pp. 637

– 639.)
Father ’s argument to the contrary conflate s the requirement
under section 300 that the court assert s jurisdiction if it find s

a section 300, sub divis ion (f) allegation true
, with the court’s
disc retion to adjudge the minor a dep endent of the court under
section 360

. Where, as here, there is uncontroverted evidence to support the allegation, the court’s decision to fi nd a section 3 00, subdivision (f) a llegation to be true

, a nd establish jurisdiction
is not dis cretionary; the court is required to assert jurisdiction. (§ 300.) A t the dispositional phase of the proceedings , however, the

court ha s discretion to adjudge t he minor a dep endent of the court

a nd to enter disposition al orders

. (See § 360, subd. (d) [ “ if the court finds that the child is a person described by Section 300, it may order and adjudge the child to be a dependent child of the court” (italics added) ] ; s ee also In r e Ethan C., supra, 54 C al.4th at p. 637 .)

### 8 Her e, the record discloses the court understood the statutory scheme and In re Ethan C. Accordingly, Father has not demonstrated legal error concerning the court’s order sustaining
the section 300, subdivision (f ) allegation and exerci sing it s jurisdiction o ver the Minors

.
DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur.

JOHNSON, J.

WEINGART, J. *

* Judge of the L os Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.