IN RE: CARLOS M. et al. (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Carlos M. and Princess M. were adjudged dependent children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j).  Their father, also named Carlos M., appeals on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction.   We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The six children of Nancy J. came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in July 2010 due to a physical altercation between Nancy J. and her teenage daughter L.L. DCFS filed a dependency petition alleging that the six children fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under various subdivisions of section 300;  a first amended petition was later filed.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, all the children were determined to be dependents of the juvenile court.   The two children who are the subject of this appeal, Carlos M. and Princess M., were found to be dependent children under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (j).  The subdivision (b) counts pertained to Nancy J.'s conduct;  the subdivision (d) and (j) counts were based upon evidence that Carlos M. had repeatedly sexually touched L.L.'s breasts.   Carlos M. appeals.

DISCUSSION

Father Carlos M. contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (d) and (j).  The children, however, were also found to be dependents of the juvenile court under subdivision (b), and that finding has not been challenged on appeal.   Because the juvenile court's other uncontested findings offer an independent basis for affirming the exercise of jurisdiction over the children, DCFS argues, and we agree, that Carlos M.'s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are moot.  (In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397 [a minor is a dependent if the actions of either parent bring her within one of the statutory definitions of a dependent];  In re Dirk S. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1045 [single basis for jurisdiction is sufficient to uphold juvenile court's order];  In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875 [where one jurisdictional finding is supported by substantial evidence, appellate court need not consider sufficiency of evidence to support other findings].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

We concur:

WOODS, Acting P. J. JACKSON, J.