Court Opinion

ID: 9900950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 20:02:40.352281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:23.032370
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/20/23 In re Angel Z. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANGEL Z., a Person Coming                                B328421
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
________________________________                               (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP04563C)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
         Plaintiff and Respondent,
         v.

D.R. et al.,
         Defendants and Appellants.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Marguerite Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
      Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.R.
      Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.Z.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   _________________________
      D.R. (Mother) and A.Z. (Father) appeal the termination of
their parental rights with respect to their son, Angel Z. We
affirm the juvenile court’s order.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In January 2022 Angel Z. was declared a dependent child of
the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 300 and he was removed from his parents’ custody. In
case No. B319424, Father appealed, challenging the jurisdictional
findings, the order removing Angel Z. from Father’s custody, and
the adequacy of the inquiry pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). (In re Angel Z.
(Aug. 16, 2023, B319424 [nonpub. opn.].)
       On April 6, 2023, while case No. B319424 was pending in
this court, the juvenile court terminated Mother and Father’s
parental rights over Angel Z. The instant matter is the parents’
appeal from that order.
       After the parents filed their opening briefs in this appeal
but before the Department of Children and Family Services filed
its respondent’s brief, this court filed its decision in the first
appeal, case No. B319424. We affirmed the jurisdictional
findings and removal order, and we found the ICWA issue moot.
(In re Angel Z., supra, B319424.) Father did not petition the
California Supreme Court for review, and the opinion in case
No. 319424 is now final.
                         DISCUSSION
      Father argues the termination of his parental rights must
be vacated because the underlying jurisdictional findings and
dispositional order were erroneous—the same issues presented in
his appeal in case No. B319424. Mother joins in Father’s

                                2
argument and argues that reversal of the termination of parental
rights order as to Father requires it be reversed as to her as well.
Neither parent raises an independent challenge to the order
terminating parental rights; they merely argue that the errors at
the jurisdictional and dispositional stages also require that the
termination order be vacated.
      The parents’ arguments about the termination of their
parental rights in this appeal rest entirely on the errors they
asserted in case No. B319424 about the jurisdictional findings
and dispositional orders. Our decision affirming those findings
and orders, which is now final, completely disposes of all issues
raised in the present appeal. (See Dickinson v. Cosby (2019)
37 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1153 [appellate court decision, stating a
rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively
establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of
the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same
case, precluding a party from obtaining appellate review of the
same issue more than once in a single action].) We therefore
affirm the order terminating parental rights.
                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.                     VIRAMONTES, J.

                                 3