Filed 9/14/20 In re S.B. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B302933

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05954A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TITUS H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Lo s Angeles County, Sabina A. Helton, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Titus H.2 Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo , Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________
Titus H., the presumed father of now

- one

- year

- old S.B., appeals the jurisdiction finding and disposition order declaring S.B. a dependent child of the juvenile cour t, removing S.B. from Titus’s custody and ordering monitored visitation, counseling and drug testing for Titus. On appeal Titus argues the court’s jurisdiction finding he had engaged in domestic violence was not supported by substantial evidence. He also contends the court abused its discretion by failing to terminate dependency jurisdiction at the conclusion of the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Initial and Amended Dependency Petitions
On Sept ember 12, 2019 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm) and (b) (failure to protect) 1 on behalf of S.B. a lleging Titus and S.B.’s mother, Ariyel B., had engaged in a violent altercation during which Titus choked Ariyel, pulled her hair and bit her arm. An amended petition filed October 24, 2019 added an allegation Titus had a history of abusing, and was a c urrent abuser of, marijuana, which put S.B. at substantial risk of serious physical harm.

1 Statutory references are to this code.3 2. The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
S.B. was born five weeks premature in May 2019 with a congenital heart defect that the doctors indicated would require three surg eries over five years to correct. The first surgery was performed when S.B. was eight days old, and he remained in the hospital until he was three months old. On July 14, 2019, while Titus and Ariyel were visiting S.B. in the hospital, Ariyel became ups et with Titus because he smelled like marijuana. Titus then got angry over a picture of another man Ariyel had posted to her social media account. According to Ariyel’s statements to hospital personnel immediately after the incident and to a Department s ocial worker a few days later, Titus grabbed her by the neck, choked her and pulled her hair. When Ariyel picked up her phone to call the police, Titus took the phone from her. Ariyel attempted to get the phone back; Titus bit her on the forearm, leaving bite marks. A nurse entered the room; and Ariyel asked for help getting her phone from Titus, who immediately left the hospital. The nurses assisted Ariyel in contacting the police, and she was given an emergency protective order. Ariyel told the socia l worker the assault was an isolated incident and nothing similar had happened previously. She did not seek a permanent restraining order because she did not feel threatened by Titus. In an interview with the social worker in October 2019, Ariyel recant ed her allegations of assault. She said she had been reaching for her phone and Titus blocked her. Ariyel stated it was a “small argument”; “we just had a tassel [ sic ].” She claimed Titus had not pulled her hair or bitten her. The bite marks on
her arm , she explained, were from an earlier fight with someone else. Ariyel said Titus “never .

. . put his hands on me like that.”4

However, she also said she no longer wanted to be in a relationship with Titus because he had “crossed” her by causing a

scene a nd involving the Department. Ariyel and S.B. were living with Ariyel’s mother until construction on Ariyel’s house was finished. The social worker observed S.B. was doing well, Ariyel was attentive to his needs and mother and child appeared to be bondi ng. The social worker noted Ariyel’s mother was very protective of Ariyel and S.B. Despite multiple attempts the Department was not able to
interview Titus until mid

- October 2019. At that time Titus denied any physical violence had occurred at the hospit al. He said he had been looking at Ariyel’s phone and she got upset. He left immediately after the argument because he was surprised at
her reaction and he did not want to cause a scene. Titus admitted he smoked marijuana twice a day for “breathing
issu es.” But he maintained he did not smoke around S.B. and knew he was not supposed to be under the influence of marijuana when he visited the baby. Titus told the social worker he hoped to reconcile with Ariyel. Although the Department expressed concern A riyel had recanted her allegations and was minimizing her situation, it nonetheless recommended S.B. be placed in her care under the supervision of the Department. The Department recommended S.B. be removed from Titus’s custody. The Department believed
T itus did not understand the severity of the situation. He had not been forthcoming about the argument with Ariyel, and he had not attempted to contact the Department for three months after the incident despite being made aware of the Department’s
involvem ent much earlier. The Department was also concerned about Titus’s marijuana use. Although he indicated he was5

willing to submit to drug testing, Titus had twice failed to show for testing. He had also failed to provide any documentation supporting his c laim of medical necessity for his marijuana use. The Department posited, if Titus had high levels of marijuana in his system, he might not be able to appropriately respond if S.B. had a medical emergency while in his care. In addition, Titus
had not had any visits with S.B. for three months because S.B.’s health condition prevented him from being brought to the Department’s offices and Titus’s proposed monitor had not made an appointment for fingerprinting.

3. The Combined Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing

Th e jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on
December 2, 2019. Ariyel and Titus requested the court dismiss the allegations of domestic violence because they were based on
an isolated incident and did not rise to the level of court
intervention. S.B.’s counsel stated her primary concern was Titus’s marijuana use given the baby’s fragile medical condition. The Department requested the petition be sustained as alleged, citing the parents’ minimization of the domestic violence allegations and Titus’s fail ure to cooperate with the Department’s investigation. The juvenile court dismissed the section 300,
subdivision (a) count but sustained the subdivision (b) counts. As to domestic violence, the court found Ariyel’s statements made
closer in time to the inc ident were more reliable than her later
denials. Proceeding to disposition Ariyel requested the juvenile court grant sole legal and physical custody to her with monitored visitation for Titus and close the case. She argued she had provided a safe home t o S.B. in the five months since the case had6

been opened and had prevented him from having any unauthorized contact with Titus. Titus joined in Ariyel’s request. The juvenile court declined to terminate its jurisdiction and placed S.B. with Ariyel under t he supervision of the Department. Titus was ordered to participate in individual counseling and to submit to drug testing. Titus was permitted three hours

per week of monitored visitation. Titus filed a timely notice of appeal on December 9, 2019. Ariye l is not a party to this appeal.

DISCUSSION

1. Titus’s Challenge to the Juvenile Court’s Jurisdiction Finding Is Not Justiciable
Titus argues the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding S.B. was at serious risk of physical harm due to domestic violence
between Titus and Ariyel was not supported by substantial
evidence because the violent altercation was a one

- time incident and there was no risk of future exposure to domestic violence. Titus does not challenge the court’s finding he is a current abuser of marij uana, was under the influence of marijuana in S.B.’s presence, and his substance abuse places S.B. at risk of serious physical harm. Those findings provide a sufficient and independent basis for affirming dependency jurisdiction over S.B. regardless of an y error in the finding as to domestic violence. (See In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 896 [“‘[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate’”]; see also In re Briana V . (2015)
236 Ca l.App.4th 297, 309 [“we need not address jurisdictional findings involving one parent where there are unchallenged findings involving the other parent”]; In re I.A . (2011)7

201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490 [“[a]n important requirement for justiciability is the av ailability of ‘effective’ relief

— that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties’ conduct or legal status”].) As a result, even if we struck the jurisdiction finding as to the domestic violence, the juvenile cou rt would still be empowered to order all reasonable services necessary to protect S.B., including services addressing conduct not alleged in the petition or sustained by the court. (See
In re Briana V. , at p. 311; see generally § 362, subd. (a).)
In his r eply brief Titus urges us to consider his appeal on the merits, arguing the finding he engaged in domestic violence could have an adverse impact in any future dependency proceedings. In limited circumstances reviewing courts have
exercised their discretio n to consider a dependency appeal challenging a jurisdiction finding despite the existence of independent and unchallenged ground s for jurisdiction when the jurisdiction findings “could be prejudicial to the appellant or could impact the current or any fut ure dependency proceedings” or “the finding could have consequences for the appellant beyond jurisdiction.” ( In re J.C. (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 1, 4; see In re D.P . (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911, 917; In re Drake M . (2012)

211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763.)
Titus has failed to identify any specific prejudice or adverse consequence that could possibly flow from the jurisdiction findings in this case. Any future dependency proceeding would have to be based on conditions existing at that time. A past jurisdiction findi ng would have limited, if any, relevance and does not create a high risk of prejudice. (See In re I.A

., supra , 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1495.) Because Titus has not established any actual or threatened prejudice from the unchallenged8

jurisdiction finding re garding domestic violence, his challenge to jurisdiction based on that finding does not raise a justiciable controversy for our consideration. ( In re Briana V., supra

, 236 Cal.App.4th at pp. 309

- 310; In re J.C., supra

, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 4; In re I.A

., at p. 1492.)

2. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Continuing Its Jurisdiction at the Disposition Hearing
Titus contends the juvenile court erred by failing to terminate dependency jurisdiction over S.B. at the conclusion of the disposition h earing. Rather than place S.B. in Ariyel’s custody with court supervision, Titus argues, the court should have terminated jurisdiction with an order granting sole physical custody of S.B. to Ariyel and allowing Titus to have monitored
visitation.
Once the juvenile court finds a basis to assume jurisdiction over a child, “the court is then required to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition for the child.” ( In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 205.) “Typically, once the child has
be en adjudged to be a dependent child pursuant to section 360,
subdivision (d), the juvenile court determines what services the child and family need to be reunited and free from court supervision.” ( I

bid

. ) However, at the disposition hearing the
court is not required to continue dependency jurisdiction over the child and order the parents to participate in services. Instead, the court “retains the discretion in an appropriate case to terminate its jurisdiction at the close of a disposition hearing
when it finds services and continued court supervision are not necessary to protect the child

. ” ( Id . at p. 208

. ) But t ermination of jurisdiction at the disposition hearing should not be the norm.

“ To the contrary, it will be an unusual case when protections9

im posed at disposition will be sufficient to permit the conclusion that termination is appropriate.” ( Id . at p. 211 [“[j]urisdiction
should not be terminated unless the court concludes services and ongoing supervision are not necessary to protect the child” ].) We review the juvenile court’s decision whether to terminate jurisdiction at the disposition hearing for abuse of discretion. (See In re Destiny D.

, supra , 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 213;
see also Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285,
300

- 301.) Here, the court acted well within its discretion in determining that continued jurisdiction over S.B. was necessary. It is true Ariyel had maintained a safe home for S.B. since the domestic violence incident. However, S.B. was not discharged
from the hospital after his birth and subsequent surgery until August 2019, less than four months before the disposition hearing. Ariyel had indicated her living situation with her mother was temporary ; and it would be reasonable to infer that
some of her sta bility derived from residing with her mother, who the Department noted was very protective of Ariyel and S.B. Further, in the five months since the domestic violence incident, Ariyel had failed to gain insight into the behavior that caused Department invo lvement in the first place; in fact

, she had denied there had been any domestic violence. Finally, S.B. is not only an infant requiring constant care, but also has a serious medical condition requiring numerous medical appointments and major surgeries. G iven these circumstances, the court acted well within its discretion in determining the family needed continued supervision.10 DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction findings and disposition orders are
affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.