In re Randy L. CA2/7

DISCUSSION

I. David L.: Challenge to Jurisdictional Finding

Astrid M. contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that physical altercations between the parents placed David L. at risk. DCFS argues that the issue is nonjusticiable because even if the court’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence, the juvenile court would nonetheless maintain jurisdiction over David L. because of the two unchallenged findings under section 300, subdivision (j) pertaining to S.L. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1491-1492.) Astrid M. notes that even when the juvenile court would nonetheless maintain dependency jurisdiction over a child, reviewing courts reach the merits of challenges to jurisdictional findings when those findings could be prejudicial to the parent who appeals. (See, e.g., In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 763.) Astrid M. argues that because she would

3 otherwise have been considered a nonoffending parent, this erroneous finding concerning her impacted the removal, visitation, and reunification services orders. In light of her argument, we will review Astrid M.’s appeal on the merits although dependency jurisdiction over…