California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
In re J.C., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, M.C., Defendant and Appellant.
[As modified Jan. 14 and 22, 2015.]
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK60359. Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Affirmed.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Richard D. Weiss, Acting County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Father M.C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court orders taking jurisdiction of his son J.C. and placing him in foster care. We affirm because the court assumed jurisdiction in part based on misconduct by the mother and because substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional and dispositional findings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 12, 2014, mother CM. (mother) pled no contest to a petition filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that asked the juvenile court to assume jurisdiction over three-month-old J.C. because the child was born with methamphetamine in his system and mother had a long history of drug abuse. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) Father submitted on the petition based on the various DCFS reports and other documentary evidence admitted in evidence. The trial court assumed jurisdiction of J.C. based on J.C.’s positive test, mother’s drug abuse, and on father’s failure to protect J.C. from mother’s drug abuse.
At an April 7, 2014 dispositional hearing, the trial court denied reunification services for mother, placed the child in foster care, and ordered reunification services for father. The trial court declined to place the child with either father or paternal grandparents based on father’s and mother’s previous history with the DCFS, which included incidents of domestic violence and drug use and questions about father’s mental health.
Father contends the trial court erred because: (1) there was insufficient evidence that he knew or could have done anything to stop mother’s drug use during her pregnancy; and (2) ...