Filed 1/21/22 In re Richard M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 RICHARD M., JR. et al.,

Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B310916

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05385A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD M., SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Dismissed.

Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Jane Kwon, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Richard M., Sr. (Father), appeals from the jurisdiction 

findings and disposition order declaring 16-year-old Richard M., 

Jr., 14-year-old Jordan M., and 11-year-old Trinity M. 

dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions 

Code1 section 300, subdivision (b)(1), after the court sustained 

allegations Father and Maria M. (Mother) had a history of 

engaging in violent altercations in the presence of the children 

and Mother failed to protect the children from Father’s abuse. 

Father contends insufficient evidence supports the court’s finding 

the children were at substantial risk of harm due to domestic 

violence between the parents.

Because Mother does not appeal from the jurisdiction 

findings as to her, and Father does not challenge specific aspects 

of the disposition order or identify adverse consequences he 

would suffer if we dismiss the appeal, we dismiss the appeal as

nonjusticiable.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Referral, Investigation, and Petition

On September 14, 2020 the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department)

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

received a referral after the Pomona Police Department 

responded to Mother’s call for adult protective services. Mother 

told the responding police officer that Father was emotionally 

abusing the children and manipulating them to disrespect 

Mother, causing Mother to become emotionally unstable and 

distressed. A social worker who responded to the home expressed 

concern the home was filled with clutter and was nearly 

uninhabitable.

On September 14, 2020 a social worker interviewed Father 

and the children separately. Father stated Mother was bipolar 

and had acted “‘out of control’” and aggressively in prior years, 

but she was now on medication that reduced her anger. Father 

admitted he and Mother fought frequently and used derogatory 

words with each other in the presence of the children. Father 

stated Mother used to hit the children prior to receiving mental 

health treatment a few years earlier, and Father had contacted 

law enforcement on two occasions when Mother was disciplining 

the children, but he denied any current physical abuse.2 Father 

believed the children could be in danger if Mother became manic 

again, and he had instructed the children to contact the police if 

Mother acted in an aggressive manner.

Richard told the social worker that Mother and Father

argued a lot, but he denied they ever got into a physical 

altercation. Jordan and Trinity similarly stated the parents 

argued constantly and should get divorced, but they denied 

2 A 2006 referral reported that Mother was seen slapping one 

of the children during a medical appointment. The family 

participated in voluntary family maintenance services in 2006 

and 2007, and Mother completed 26 weeks of anger management 

classes.
4

observing the parents hit each other or the children. The 

children each reported feeling safe in the home, and the social 

worker did not observe any visible marks indicative of abuse. 

The social worker completed a safety walkthrough of the 

residence and found the home and yard extremely cluttered and 

unsanitary, although on later visits the social worker found some 

improvement in the condition of the home.

On September 24, 2020 a social worker interviewed Mother 

at the family home. According to Mother, Father insulted and 

verbally abused Mother on a constant basis, called her worthless, 

mocked her religion, and encouraged Richard and Jordan to 

disrespect her. Mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder 

10 years earlier and had been hospitalized three years earlier, 

but she was currently managing her condition with medication 

and was seeing a psychiatrist and a therapist.

The detention report reflected that on July 18, 2009 Mother

was arrested and later convicted for inflicting corporal injury on 

Father. On January 17, 2013 Father was arrested for false 

imprisonment, domestic battery, and misdemeanor child 

endangerment after Mother reported Father held her neck and 

pushed down on her chest during an argument in the presence of 

Trinity.

On October 9, 2020 the Department filed a petition on 

behalf of Richard, Jordan, and Trinity under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1), alleging Mother had a history of mental and 

emotional problems, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and 

major depression, which rendered Mother incapable of providing 

regular care for the children, and Father failed to protect the 

children from Mother’s mental and emotional problems. At the 

October 14, 2020 detention hearing the court ordered the children 
5

released to the parents with Department supervision, including 

unannounced home visits and referrals for family preservation 

services, counseling for Mother, and therapy for the children.

On November 20, 2020 the Department filed an amended 

petition adding a count under section 300, subdivision (b)(1),

alleging that Mother and Father had a history of engaging in 

violent altercations in the presence of the children; on one

occasion Father had grabbed Mother and threw her on the floor; 

on another occasion Father placed Mother in a headlock; Mother 

had been arrested and convicted in 2009 for domestic violence; 

Father was verbally abusive to Mother in the presence of the 

children; and Mother failed to protect the children from Father’s 

physical and verbal abuse of Mother. The amended petition also 

alleged the family home was unsanitary and Father hoarded 

items.

B. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Report and Addendum

Richard and Jordan reported to the dependency 

investigator that the parents continued to argue and yell. Trinity 

reported that Father “‘gets so mad’” at Mother. She recounted a 

recent incident when Father started screaming and throwing food 

when he thought someone had taken his ice. Trinity did not 

recall seeing Mother or Father hit each other, but she 

remembered both of them throwing things on the floor when she 

was around seven years old. She added, “‘They were pushing 

each other. I was in the hallway crying.’” Trinity said Father 

was “‘really mean’” to Mother, and her brothers were mean to 

her, explaining they treated her “‘like my dad treats my mom.’”
6

Mother reported Father had been controlling and verbally 

and emotionally abusive from shortly after they married 18 years 

earlier. Mother was diagnosed with severe depression when 

Richard was one year old, which she attributed to “‘the way 

[Father] treated her.’” Mother stated that when she was 

pregnant with Trinity, Father “‘grabbed [her] by the arms and 

threw [her] on the kitchen floor’” after Mother threw out some 

clothing. Subsequently, Mother hit Father when he was verbally 

abusing her, and she was arrested. On a different occasion, 

“[Father] put [her] in a headlock and was choking [her].” Another 

time, Mother tried to get away from Father while they were 

arguing, “‘when he grabbed [her] by the neck, like a choke hold. 

Trinity saw that.’” Father was often verbally aggressive towards 

Mother in the presence of the children.

Father reported his arguments with Mother arose because 

“‘she does weird things, over and over,’” and she engaged in 

obsessive cleaning. With respect to Father’s arrest in 2013 for 

false imprisonment and battery, Father stated, “‘False things 

were written.’” Father reported he followed Mother into the 

laundry room during an argument, and as he tried to push his 

way into the room, “‘she closed the door on [his] arm. She said 

she wanted to get away from [him]. They dropped the charges.’”

The dependency investigator concluded, “The parents as 

well as the children reported a lot of arguing between the parents 

and at least two incidents when the incidents became physical. 

The parents have both been arrested for domestic violence . . . . 

[¶] . . . The arguments appear to be happening due to [F]ather 

hoarding and [F]ather not allowing [M]other to clean the 

home. . . .”
7

C. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing

At the November 18, 2020 jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the 

domestic violence count as to both Father and Mother.

3 The 

court dismissed the counts relating to Mother’s mental health 

and the unsanitary condition of the home. The court stated, “It 

appears there . . . is ongoing domestic violence. It doesn’t appear 

to be physical—or as physical as it was in the past, but the way 

the parents treat each other is obviously domestic violence. And 

it’s reached the point where now even the children are getting in 

on the act . . . . And it’s not appropriate, and it puts them at 

further risk.”

The juvenile court declared the children dependents of the 

court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), and ordered them

released to the home of the parents with family maintenance 

services. The court ordered Father to participate in a 52-week 

domestic violence program for perpetrators, conjoint counseling 

with Mother, and individual counseling to address case issues 

including anger management.

Father timely appealed. Mother did not.

3 The juvenile court struck the words “failed” and “failure” 

from the petition as to Mother’s failure to protect the children, 

sustaining the allegations that “[Mother] was unable to protect 

the children” and Mother’s “inability to protect the children 

endangers the children’s physical health and safety” and places 

them at risk of serious physical harm.
8

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Father contends insufficient evidence supports 

the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding that the children were at 

substantial risk of harm due to domestic violence between the 

parents. Father further contends the disposition orders “were 

improper in that they were necessarily based on the jurisdictional 

findings.” However, Father does not challenge any specific aspect 

of the disposition plan, such as placement of the children in the 

home of the parents with family maintenance services or his 

mandated participation in a domestic violence program and 

counseling. Because Mother has not appealed the jurisdiction 

findings as to her, and Father has not identified any adverse 

consequences he will suffer if the appeal is dismissed, we 

conclude the appeal is not justiciable.

An appeal from a jurisdiction finding under section 300 is 

not justiciable where “no effective relief could be granted . . . , as 

jurisdiction would be established regardless of the appellate 

court’s conclusions with respect to any such [challenged] 

jurisdictional grounds.” (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 

308, 329; accord, In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1490 

[“An 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.”].) “[A] dependency court has jurisdiction when the 

actions of either parent bring the child within the statutory 

definition of a dependent, which fits with the purpose of a 

dependency proceeding to protect the child, rather than prosecute 

the parents. [Citation.] Accordingly, the court may base 

jurisdiction on the actions of one or both parents, and once 
9

established, the court may enter orders binding both parents.” 

(In re H.R. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1285-1286; accord, In re 

Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 [“‘[A] jurisdictional 

finding good against one parent is good against both. More 

accurately, the minor is a dependent if the actions of either 

parent bring [the minor] within one of the statutory definitions of 

a dependent.’”]; id. at p. 309 [“[W]e need not address 

jurisdictional findings involving one parent where there are 

unchallenged findings involving the other parent.”].)

Nevertheless, the appellate courts “may exercise their 

‘discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any 

jurisdictional finding when the finding (1) serves as the basis for 

dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; 

(2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially 

impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; 

or (3) “could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond 

jurisdiction” [citation].’” (In re D.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 911,

917, quoting In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763; 

accord, In re Madison S., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 329; In re 

Christopher M. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1316.)

Here, regardless of whether we grant Father relief, the 

juvenile court would have jurisdiction over the children based on 

the sustained jurisdiction findings as to Mother, including her 

perpetration of domestic violence (the 2009 conviction) and her 

inability to protect the children from Father’s domestic violence—

findings she has not challenged on appeal. (In re Madison S., 

supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 329; In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 1490.) Although Father challenges the disposition order, he 

argues only that the order should be reversed because the 

jurisdiction findings should be reversed. He does not specifically 
10

challenge the children’s placement in the parents’ home, the

order for family maintenance services, or the requirement he 

complete a domestic violence program and counseling.

4

 In 

supplemental briefing,5 Father contends that if he were “found to 

be a non offending parent, his dispositional case plan would 

necessarily be different.” However, the juvenile court has

discretion to order a disposition case plan for Father—including 

family maintenance services, a domestic violence program, and 

counseling—based on the sustained allegations against Mother. 

(See In re D.L. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1148 [“Irrespective of 

whether the court’s jurisdictional findings as to her were well 

founded, the court had jurisdiction over the child. Accordingly, it 

had the authority to order a nonoffending parent to participate in 

services.”]; In re Briana V., supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 311

[“there need not be a jurisdictional finding as to the particular 

parent upon whom the court imposes a dispositional order”].) 

4 In his opening brief Father argues as to the disposition 

order, “In this case, the juvenile court declared the children 

dependents of the juvenile court and ordered them placed with 

parents under a plan of family maintenance. . . . These orders 

were improper in that they were necessarily based on the 

jurisdictional findings of the juvenile court. [Citation.] As those 

findings should be reversed, the dispositional order should go 

with them.”

5 In response to our invitation, Father and the Department 

submitted supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the 

appeal is justiciable. 
11

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.