In re E.D. CA2/1
Paul D. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order of dependency jurisdiction over E.D. (child), age two, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect), on the ground that the jurisdiction and disposition order as it related to him was not supported by substantial evidence. We hold that the juvenile court’s finding of dependency jurisdiction over the child based on father’s conduct was not supported by substantial evidence. However, because the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over the child based on mother’s conduct, we must also consider the court’s dispositional order as it relates to father. As a result, we hold further that the court’s dispositional order as to father was supported by substantial evidence.
Comments on In re E.D. CA2/1