Filed 12/31/14 In re Z.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.R., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253782

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
T.A.,
Defendant and Appellant. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK97023)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tony L. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed.

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counse l, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel.

_____________ _____________2 Mother T.A. appeals from the juvenile co urt order taking jurisd iction of daughter Z.R. based on mother’s drug a buse and the concomitant order placing the child in foster care. We affirm the jurisdictional order be cause jurisdiction was also assumed based on father’s drug abuse, and we affirm the dis positional order because there was substantial evidence that placement with the mother posed a risk of harm to the child.

FACTS AND PROCED URAL HISTORY 1

On December 31, 20 13, the juvenile court assume d jurisdiction of 22-month-old Z.R. after sustaining allegations that her pa rents – mother T.A. and father D.R. – had a history of drug abuse that left them unable to properly care for the minor and placed her at a substantial risk of harm. (W elf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Mother tested positive fo r marijuana when Z.R. was born, although the child did not have marijuana in her system. Mother ha d lost five previous children in the Arizona dependency system due to cocaine and ma rijuana abuse. She also had several prostitution related convictions , including one that occurr ed while this dependency proceeding was pending. The manager of the apartment building wher e parents lived told a social worker for responden t Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that their apartment reeked of marijuan a. The minor’s nanny also reported that the minor always smelled of marijuana and cigarettes. There were also allegations of domestic violence, but mother recanted those and said she had filed false police reports clai ming father had struck her. Father was reportedly mother’s pimp and had a lengthy criminal history, including battery, assault with a firearm, sex with a minor, battery on a peace officer, and resisting arrest. Mother claimed she had stopped using co caine in 2002 and, as of March 2013, smoked marijuana only twice a day to ease he r chronic back and leg pain. She obtained a marijuana prescription for that purpose, but said she never saw any other physician beforehand to diagnose and treat her pain. Mother claimed she kept the substance well

1 As with most dependency proceedings, this one has a lengthy and detailed history. We recount only those facts necessary to our decision.3 out of the minor’s reach, a nd had someone else care for the minor while she was under the influence. By the time of the final ad judication hearing in December 2013, mother claimed she used marijuana on ly once a week, administered it by using a “G-pen,” and was willing to give it up entirely if necessary in order to regain custody of the minor. Mother claimed she conquered her coca ine addiction without any treatment by simply deciding to stop using it. A December 2013 DCFS report stated that mother had failed to complete a drug reha bilitation program ordered as pa rt of one of her earlier
criminal convictions.
The trial court believed mother was honest when she recanted her earlier domestic violence accusations, but concluded that he r false accusations, including false police reports, left her with a serious credibility problem. The cour t then sustained the drug use allegations against both mother and father. The court ordered that the minor remain in
foster care and awarded mother monitored vis its of six hours per week. Mother contends
there was insufficient ev idence that her occasional use of prescription marijuana justified assuming jurisdiction of the minor. She also contends that even if the court properly assumed jurisdiction that ther e was insufficient ev idence to justify the dispositional order.

DISCUSSION

1. Because Jurisdiction Was Proper Ba sed on Father’s Conduct We Need Not Consider Whether It Was Also Proper Based on Mother’s Conduct
Because the juvenile court assumes juri sdiction of the child , not the parents, jurisdiction may exist based on the conduct of one parent only. As a result, we need not consider jurisdictional findings based on the other parent’s conduct. ( In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491.) However, we may exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the other parent’s jurisdictional challenge in three situations: (1) the jurisdictional finding serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal; (2) the findings could be prejudici al to the appellant or could impact the current or any future dependency proc eedings; and (3) the finding could have4 consequences for the appellant beyond jurisdiction. ( In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) Respondent contends that the general ru le applies and that we should therefore affirm based on the uncontested jurisdicti onal findings made against father. Mother
contends that we should reac h the jurisdictional findings on the merits because without them the juvenile court could not have entered its dispositiona l order that kept the minor
in foster care. As we set forth in secti on 2 of our DISCUSSION, the dispositional order is supported by implied findings that had no thing to do with mothe r’s marijuana abuse. As a result, we decline to ex ercise our discretion to reach the jurisdictional issues on the
merits.

2. The Dispositional Order Is Suppor ted By Substantial Evidence
In order to remove a dependent child fro m the parents’ home there must be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial da nger to the child’s health, safety, and emotional well-being that cannot be eliminat ed by reasonable means. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) We review the ju venile court’s findings under the substantial evidence standard. ( Sheila S. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872, 880-881.) Because the focus is on preventing harm to th e child, the parent need not be dangerous
and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. ( In re
J.S. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1492.) As mother points out, the juvenile court did not meet its statutory obligation to state the facts upon which its disposition order was based. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (d).) Where there is su fficient evidence to support the dispositional order, however,
the court’s error is considered harmless because it undoubtedly would have made findings adverse to the affected parent. ( In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1218-1219.) The record contains such evidence. Mother had a history of convictions fo r prostitution-related offenses. As of December 2012, when the original petition in th is case was filed, mother was in jail for a prostitution-related offense. In August 2013 , mother was convicted again of prostitution-5 related offenses and placed on probation. Even if the ju risdictional findings against mother were unwarranted, as a nonoffending pa rent she was still required to present a plan acceptable to the court demonstrating that she would be able to protect the minor from future harm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 36 1, subd. (c)(1).) We see nothing in the
record that showed mother had abandoned prostitution. Combined with th e fact that she picked up yet another pros titution conviction while this matter was pending in the juvenile court, her failure to address this issue and assure the court that she would not again be convicted and incarcerated justified the dispositional order. Furthermore, the minor had been diagnos ed with Post Trauma tic Stress Disorder, which was exacerbated during her visits with mother, which includ ed reported instances of mother berating the child for removing he r hair barrettes. Mother was seen using a flammable sulfur hair compound on the minor even though the pr oduct bore a label warning against its use on young children. Her visits with the child were inconsistent and showed a disregard for her nap and feeding schedule. Based on this evidence, we conclude that if the juvenile court had complied with its obligation to make dispositional findings, there is no doubt that these findings would have supported the removal of the child from mo ther’s custody. We therefore affirm the dispositional order.

DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional orders entered as to mother T.A. are affirmed.

RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J. FLIER, J.