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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Los 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 court, 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 September 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. alleging 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 current 

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 surgeries 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 upset 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 social 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 social 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 recanted 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 and 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 bonding. 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 hospital. 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 

issues.” 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 Ariyel 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 

Titus 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 

involvement much earlier. The Department was also concerned 

about Titus’s marijuana use. Although he indicated he was 
5

willing to submit to drug testing, Titus had twice failed to show 

for testing. He had also failed to provide any documentation 

supporting his claim 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

The 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 failure 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 incident 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 to S.B. in the five months since the case had 
6

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 the 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. 

Ariyel 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 marijuana, 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 any 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 Cal.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 availability 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 court 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 reply 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 discretion to consider a dependency appeal 

challenging a jurisdiction finding despite the existence of 

independent and unchallenged grounds for jurisdiction when the 

jurisdiction findings “could be prejudicial to the appellant or 

could impact the current or any future 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 finding 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 unchallenged 
8

jurisdiction finding regarding 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 hearing. 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 

been 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.” (Ibid.) 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 termination 

of jurisdiction at the disposition hearing should not be the norm. 

“To the contrary, it will be an unusual case when protections 
9

imposed 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 stability 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 involvement 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. Given 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.