Filed 4/20/21 In re A.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Dismissed.

Nancy R. Brucker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Father Andrew B. challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that he endangered the physical health and safety of his infant son A.B. due to his prior criminal convictions of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 and sexual intercourse with a minor. He has not challenged other grounds for jurisdiction based on his domestic violence with A.B.’s mother Kyra L. and mother’s drug use, and he has not challenged the case disposition. Because we can afford father no effective relief, we dismiss his appeal.

“When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court’s jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the juvenile court’s finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451; see In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762.) Here, regardless of our decision on the jurisdictional ground challenged by father, the juvenile court would continue to exercise jurisdiction over A.B. based on both father’s and mother’s conduct.

Father urges us to evaluate his appeal because the findings based upon his criminal history could have, in his words, “far reaching consequences” in this and future dependency proceedings involving A.B. (In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 762–763 [court generally exercises discretion to reach merits when a 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’ ”].)

Father does not identify what specific impact, if any, the juvenile court’s finding would have on future proceedings. We can identify none. A favorable decision would not make the difference between father being an “offending” or a “non-offending” parent. (Cf. In re Drake, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 763.) Further, even if we reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction finding, father’s criminal history would still exist and would almost certainly be considered in future proceedings, depending on the facts at that time. Under the circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of father’s appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

BIGELOW, P. J.

We concur:

STRATTON, J.

WILEY, J.