There was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdiction findings as to Father. Minor was detained following a domestic violence incident between Mother and Mother’s boyfriend. Father had ADHD which he was treating through individual counseling. Paternal grandmother reported that Father could become overwhelmed by parenting and would leave Jayden in her care while he took the time and space he needed. Father tested positive for marijuana on three occasions and reported he had been a victim of Mother’s domestic violence previously, when they were in a relationship. At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found true jurisdictional allegations as to Father based on his failure to protect Jayden from Mother’s domestic violence, use of substances, Father’s mental health issues, and a history of engaging in domestic violence. The juvenile court found placement with Father would be detrimental to Jayden and ordered reunification services for both parents. Father appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Here, none of the jurisdictional findings as to Father were supported by substantial evidence. There was no evidence that Mother and Father ever engaged in domestic violence in Jayden’s presence or that the domestic violence was ongoing. There was no evidence that Jayden was at a substantial risk of being harmed by Father’s ADHD as Father would leave Jayden with an appropriate caregiver when his mental condition made him unable to provide that care himself. Lastly, there was no evidence that Father’s marijuana use placed Jayden at risk as there was no evidence that he was under the influence of marijuana when he parented Jayden. Because there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdiction findings, the disposition findings must also be reversed.

Mother’s failure to appeal the jurisdiction findings does not moot Father’s appeal. The Agency argued that because Mother had not appealed the jurisdictional findings, Father’s challenge was thus moot. However, an appeal is not moot if the challenged jurisdictional finding serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal. In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 283.) At the 12-month review hearing, Jayden was returned to Father’s custody, thus mooting the appeal. However, the court exercised its discretion to review the merits of the appeal.

Father was not required to renew his objections to the jurisdiction allegations at the dispositional portion of the hearing to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal. At the dispositional portion of the hearing, Father “submitted on reunification services.” The Agency argued that this submission resulted in a forfeiture of any challenge to the dispositional orders. However, substantial evidence challenges are not forfeited by a failure to raise them below. (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 848.) Father did not submit on the social worker’s dispositional recommendation. Further, Father was not required to reassert his jurisdictional challenges at the dispositional portion of the hearing. Father did not forfeit his challenge to the dispositional orders.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E084114.PDF