In Re Jonathan B.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

Sherry B. appeals from an order declaring her son, Jonathan B., a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c), and (i). [1] She contends subdivision (c) is unconstitutionally vague and in violation of a number of guarantees of the United States and California Constitutions. She further contends the court's order is unsupported by sufficient evidence as to any ground. Because we decide the case on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence to support the dependency orders under subdivision (b), we do not reach the constitutional issues in regard to subdivision (c). (1) The reviewing court "should not decide constitutional questions unless compelled to do so." ( People v. Marsh (1984) 36 Cal.3d 134, 144 [ 202 Cal. Rptr. 92 , 679 P.2d 1033 ].)

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .

(2a) Sherry contends the judgment cannot be affirmed unless the evidence is sufficient to support all of the grounds upon which the court relied in making its dependency orders. We disagree. The reviewing…