gno.law

In re Jeremiah D. CA2/5

California Court of Appeal · B248566 · 2013-11-19 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from orders
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. CK97189
Trial judge
Marguerite D. Downing
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
other
Panel
Paul Turner (author), Richard M. Mosk, Sandy R. Kriegler

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 11/19/13 In re Jeremiah D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 B248566 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (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 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 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.

Cites, in this corpus