In re M.I. CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 9/11/26 In re M.I. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re M.I., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND D088107 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 521741) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.C., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lilys D. McCoy, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Indra N. Bennett, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION After a paternity test confirmed A.C. was M.I.’s father, the juvenile court elevated his status to that of presumed father. But at the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court sustained the Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition which still described A.C. as the alleged father. Although we agree with A.C. that this was error, the error does not warrant reversal of the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders where A.C. does not contend there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders. We thus affirm the findings and orders but remand to the juvenile court with directions to correct the omission.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 I. Background In December 2025, the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a section 300 petition alleging M.I. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The petition alleged M.I. “was exposed to a violent confrontation between the mother and [A.C.,] the alleged father.”2 It further stated, “the alleged father consumed alcohol beverages, he punched the mother in the face four times while driving their vehicle with [M.I.] in the back seat. After being struck, the mother exited the vehicle and sought medical attention, and the father drove away with [M.I.] in the car, which places [M.I.] at substantial risk of serious physical harm.” At the detention hearing, the court found a prima facie case was made and that A.C. was the presumed father pursuant to Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d). The court allowed M.I. to remain in the mother’s custody, removed M.I. from A.C.’s custody, and authorized voluntary services. At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing in March 2026, the court found the allegations in the petition true and declared M.I. a dependent of the court. The court also found, despite “reasonable efforts” to avoid removing M.I. from A.C.’s care, it was “appropriate” to do so by “clear and convincing evidence.” The court ordered case plan services for both parents, supervised visits for A.C., and a three-year restraining order to protect mother and M.I. from A.C.

2 The mother is not a party to this appeal and will only be referenced when necessary.

3 II. Discussion A.C.’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court erred when it sustained the petition because the petition described him as M.I.’s alleged father rather than M.I.’s presumed father. The Agency does not dispute the juvenile court elevated A.C.’s status to M.I.’s presumed father.3 At the detention hearing in December 2025, the court noted there was a paternity test in a related family law case and “paternity was determined.” With “no objections,” the court found A.C. to be “the presumed father” of M.I. Following the detention hearing, every minute order from every subsequent hearing referred to A.C. as “Presumed Father” and there are no references to him being the alleged father. Thus the petition incorrectly identified A.C. as the alleged father and the juvenile court should have amended the petition before sustaining it. (See, e.g., In re I.S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 918, 927 [“A juvenile court may amend a dependency petition to conform to the evidence received at the jurisdiction hearing to remedy immaterial variances between the petition and proof.”]; In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1041 [“Given the haste with which petitions are sometimes drafted, and section 332’s statement that only a ‘concise statement of facts is required,’ the ability to amend according to proof plays an important role in the overall dependency scheme.”]; In re 3 The Agency counters that A.C. forfeited the argument by failing to raise it in the juvenile court. Because the issue here is presented on undisputed facts, we exercise our discretion to review the legal question despite A.C.’s failure to present it below. (See, e.g., In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887–888 [challenge to probation condition as vague and overbroad not forfeited where based on undisputed facts]; In re H.D. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 814, 817 [“[a]pplication of the forfeiture rule is not automatic, and a reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited claims”].)

4 Man J. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 475, 481 [the court may amend the petition “to correct or make more specific” the factual allegations that support the basis for establishing jurisdiction “when the very nature of the charge remains unchanged”].) But apart from this error, A.C. does not challenge the petition in any other way nor dispute any of the evidence supporting the court’s findings and orders. He does not, for example, argue there is a lack of evidence supporting the factual allegations of domestic violence or the finding that M.I. faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm. He also does not dispute that the mother’s conduct also brought M.I. under the court’s jurisdiction. (See, e.g., In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397 [“a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both”]; In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 308 [affirming jurisdictional findings and orders where the father “makes no challenge to the jurisdictional findings against mother”].) The failure to amend the petition to conform to the court’s order elevating A.C. to presumed father requires correction but not reversal. DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders are affirmed. We remand with directions to the juvenile court to strike from the section 300 petition all references to the “assumed father” and replace them with “presumed father” to bring this petition into conformity with the findings made on the record.

DO, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

5 BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.