Filed 10/18/21 In re Jordan M. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re JORDAN M., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B310173

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00008C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

________________________________

E.B. (mother) challenges the juvenile dependency court’s 

legal authority to enter a disposition order imposing a case plan 

on mother after declaring her infant child Jordan M. (minor) a 

dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1

Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department) contends the case plan was within 

the court’s authority. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts 

in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings, 

resolving all conflicts and drawing all reasonable inferences to 

uphold the court’s order, if possible. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 

622, 633.)

Dependency Proceedings (Up to Appeal)

Mother and O.M. (father) are the parents of three young 

children.2 In March 2020, the court declared the two oldest 

children (born January 2018 and January 2019) dependents 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code, unless stated otherwise.

2 Father is not a party to this appeal. 
3

based on father’s substance abuse and mother’s failure to protect. 

According to the sustained petition allegations, father had a 

history of substance abuse, including heroin, and was a recent 

abuser of amphetamines and methamphetamine. Father tested 

positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and morphine in 

December 2019. Mother should have known of father’s substance 

abuse and failed to protect the children by allowing father 

unlimited access to the children. The court placed the children 

with mother, who received family maintenance services, and 

ordered father to complete a drug rehabilitation program, drug 

testing, parenting, and mental health counseling. 

Shortly after minor was born in July 2020, the Department 

filed a petition alleging minor was a dependent described under 

section 300, subdivision (b), based on father’s ongoing substance 

abuse and mother’s failure to protect. Mother had completed 

some parenting classes, but father had several no shows and 

positive drug tests, and he admitted to using heroin in April 

2020. In August 2020, the court ordered minor detained from 

father and released to mother. 

The Department’s reports contain mixed evidence on 

father’s attempt to end his involvement with drugs. While some 

drug tests came back positive for methadone, father also failed to 

appear a number of times for scheduled tests, and he had recent 

arrests for driving under the influence and for possession of drug 

paraphernalia and controlled substances for sale. 

Father had monitored visits with all three children, and 

both parents wanted to provide a better life for their children. 

Mother had secured permanent housing and was on the waiting 

list for family preservation services. The Department 

recommended that the court find minor to be a dependent, place 
4

him with mother, grant father monitored visits, and order both 

parents to participate in their case plans. Mother’s recommended

case plan was to include parenting, family preservation, a 

cultural broker, and referrals for housing and childcare. 

At the hearing on December 18, 2020, both mother’s 

counsel and minor’s counsel asked the court to strike the failure 

to protect allegations against mother, arguing that there was no 

evidence mother had failed to protect minor, as she did not 

permit father to have unmonitored contact with minor. The court 

agreed: it sustained only the allegations based on father’s 

substance abuse and struck the failure to protect allegations 

against mother. 

Turning to disposition, mother submitted on the issue of 

family maintenance services, asking for the case plan to be as 

previously ordered for the older siblings. The attorneys for minor 

and the Department did not request any changes to mother’s case 

plan. The court, however, added one item to mother’s case plan:

a requirement that mother participate in 20 online meetings of a 

program for family members of people addicted to narcotics. 

Mother’s attorney asked the court to repeat the number of 

meetings ordered but made no objection. The court also ordered 

the Department to provide referrals for family preservation, 

housing assistance, child care, and a cultural broker. Mother 

filed a timely appeal. 

Post-Appeal Developments

After appellate briefing in the current case was complete,

the dependency court sustained new allegations contained in a 

subsequent petition filed under section 342, alleging mother 
5

placed minor and his older siblings at risk of harm by exposing 

all three children to father’s violent conduct, specifically that 

father was carrying a gun and shot himself in the leg in the 

children’s presence. The dependency court entered a new 

disposition case plan.

3 

DISCUSSION

Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the dependency

court lacked legal authority to order her, a non-offending parent,

to comply with a case plan. 

The Department argues that mother forfeited the issue by 

failing to raise it before the trial court. “A party forfeits the right 

to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she 

fails to raise the objection in the trial court. [Citations.] 

Forfeiture . . . applies in juvenile dependency litigation and is 

intended to prevent a party from standing by silently until the 

conclusion of the proceedings.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 

Cal.App.4th 212, 221–222.) 

In response, mother points out that application of the 

forfeiture rule is not automatic, and asks this court to overlook 

mother’s failure to object based on the confusion caused by the 

fact that the court was simultaneously conducting a review 

hearing under section 364 as to minor’s older siblings, and the 

disposition hearing as to minor. 

In addition, on August 18, 2021, we invited the parties to 

submit letter briefs addressing whether this court should dismiss 

3 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the section 

342 petition and the dependency court’s August 11, 2021 order 

sustaining the petition allegations. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)).
6

mother’s appeal as moot, based on the court’s August 11, 2021 

order sustaining section 342 petition allegations against mother

and entering a new disposition order. “An appeal becomes moot 

when, through no fault of the respondent, the occurrence of an 

event renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant the 

appellant effective relief. [Citations.]” (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 

165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054.) The Department contends that the 

juvenile court’s subsequent orders render moot the issues raised 

in mother’s appeal. Mother argues that because she appealed the 

court’s August 11, 2021 findings and orders, her current appeal is 

not moot. (In re Rashad D. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 156, 164–166

[a parent’s failure to challenge post-judgment orders results in a 

forfeiture of the challenge to jurisdictional orders].)

Although there are strong arguments that mother’s appeal 

is either forfeited or moot, we exercise our discretion to consider 

the substance of mother’s arguments on appeal. 

After the juvenile court has declared a child to be a 

dependent, “the court may limit the control to be exercised over 

the dependent child by any parent.” (§ 361, subd. (a).) The court 

has the power to issue “all reasonable orders for the care, 

supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of [a 

dependent] child” and to “direct any reasonable orders to the 

parents or guardians of [that] child.” (§ 362, subds. (a) & (d).) 

“‘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.’” (In re Briana V. (2015) 236 

Cal.App.4th 297, 311.) “‘The best interest of the child is the 

fundamental goal of the juvenile dependency system, underlying 

. . . child safety, family preservation, and timely permanency and 

stability.’ [Citation.]” (In re J.M. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 707, 
7

718.) “[A] jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a 

particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders 

binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been 

established.” (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484,1492.) 

The court’s disposition order cannot be reversed absent a 

clear abuse of discretion. (In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 

975.) “‘“The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether 

the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more 

inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the 

reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for 

that of the trial court.”’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 

318–319.)

In her reply brief, mother acknowledges that section 362 

gives the dependency court legal authority to require a nonoffending parent to participate in services, but argues that the 

services ordered here were unreasonable. Other than pointing to 

her status as a non-offending parent and also claiming, without 

any further explanation, that the case plan here was 

unreasonable, mother has made no attempt to explain why the

December 18, 2020 disposition order was in error. The 

dependency court’s order required mother to participate in the 

same services that had already been ordered in connection with 

the dependency case involving her two older children. The only 

additional requirement was for mother to participate in 20 online 

meetings for family members of people addicted to narcotics. 

The record provides ample support for imposing these 

requirements on mother, who remained in a relationship with 

father. Both parents hoped to provide a better life for their 

children, but father’s efforts to end a lengthy history of serious 

drug use and abuse—including past use of heroin, morphine, and 
8

methamphetamine—were still in the early stages. Additionally, 

while mother expressed confidence that father had not used 

drugs since being released from prison, she acknowledged that 

father may have slipped up right before he was asked to test for 

the Department in December 2019, when he tested positive for 

methamphetamine. As the court explained when it ordered 

mother to participate in 20 online meetings, “she needs to attend 

meetings for family members who have drug-addicted family 

members, especially heroin- and morphine-addicted. She needs 

further clarity of her role in the family with someone with 

father’s problems.” Each of the services ordered by the court 

were reasonably designed to further the children’s best interests, 

and mother has not demonstrated otherwise. We find no abuse of 

discretion.

DISPOSITION

The court’s December 18, 2020 disposition order is

affirmed.

MOOR, J.

I concur:

RUBIN, P. J.
In re Jordan M.

B310173

BAKER, J., Dissenting

I would dismiss the appeal as moot; there is no good reason 

to pass on the merits of a case plan that has since been 

superseded. 

BAKER, J.