In re Jeremiah D.
Filed 11/19/13 In re Jeremiah D. CA2/5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
In re JEREMIAH D., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B248566
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK97189)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.D.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne
Davidson, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Jessica S. Mitchell,
Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The father, T.D., appeals from the jurisdictional and
dispositional orders of the juvenile court.
At the time the jurisdictional and
dispositional orders were entered as to the father, they were likewise
entered as to the mother. The mother has
not appealed. The judgment is final as
to the mother. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 906; In re Matthew C. (1993) 6
Cal.4th 386, 393; Wanda B. v.
Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1395.) Thus the juvenile court has jurisdiction over
the father based upon the findings as to the mother. (In re
I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th
1484, 1491; In re Alexis E. (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.) Finally,
the father’s challenge to dispositional order has no merit. No objection was interposed to the
dispositional order. In fact, the father
consented in writing to the dispositional order and its href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">drug related conditions. (In re
Ethan C. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 610, 640-641; Hasson v. Ford Motor Company (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 420-421; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419; In re N.M. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 159, 167; Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676,
686.)
DISPOSITION
The orders under review are
affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER,
P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER,
J.