In re D.M. CA2/2

DISCUSSION

I. The Jurisdictional Finding

Because “[t]he purpose of a dependency proceeding . . . is to protect the child, rather than prosecute the parent,” a juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction over a child is valid if it sustained as to either parent. (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.) The juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding against father—which no one contests on appeal—is accordingly sufficient to confer dependency jurisdiction over D.M. Courts nevertheless retain some discretion to review a jurisdictional finding, even if doing so would not rob the court of jurisdiction, if, among other reasons, that finding “serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal” or “could be prejudicial to the [parent against whom the finding is made] or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings.” (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763.) We will exercise that discretion in this case because mother is challenging the dispositional order and because an adverse finding in this case could impact future dependency proceedings involving her other children. As pertinent to the allegations against…