In re A.B. CA2/2

DISCUSSION

Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the findings 2 against him.

The Department urges that the jurisdictional findings against mother are sufficient to uphold the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction over the children, and that we need not reach father’s challenges. To some extent, the Department is correct. (In re D.P. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 898, 902 (D.P.) [“‘As long as there is one unassailable

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Father also challenged the court’s dispositional order, but we have taken judicial notice of the fact that the juvenile court placed the children back with father at the paternal grandmother’s home. The parties agree that this issue is now moot. 3 jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate’”], quoting In Ashley B. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 968, 979.) However, we may still review a finding if that finding would be prejudicial to the appellant (D.P., at p. 902), such as when that finding “serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal” or when that finding “could…