Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re Zachary R. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B345349

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (20.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/19/26 In re Zachary R. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re Zachary R., a Person B345349
Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No.24CCJP03710A)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Jason R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Mary E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Kelly G. Emling, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Jason R. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s
detention and dispositional orders. We conclude that Father’s
challenge to the detention order is moot, substantial evidence
supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order regarding
Father, and Father presents no Fourteenth Amendment
violation. Finally, Father fails to establish that the trial court
was compelled to remove the child from Kristen M. (Mother).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
1. The family and related superior court cases
Father and Mother are no longer together, and they have
identical twin children. Zachary R. is the only child subject to
this appeal, and he was 16 years old when the juvenile court
asserted jurisdiction. Zachary experienced psychosis and
catatonia, both life threatening conditions, when the case came
before the juvenile court. In addition to the dependency case
involving Zachary, the family was simultaneously involved in
mental health court and family court cases, which affected
parental custody and medical authority to direct Zachary’s care.
On May 30, 2024, Judge Maria Cavalluzzi of the mental
health court granted the request of Resnick Neuropsychiatric
Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for
an order for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for Zachary. Then
on July 11, 2024, Judge Cavalluzzi granted an order for
additional ECT treatment for Zachary. One month later, Judge
Cavalluzzi again granted UCLA’s request for more ECT
treatments for Zachary.
On August 30, 2024, Commissioner Marilyn Mordetzky,
presiding in family court, ordered Zachary released to Father’s
custody upon his departure from UCLA hospital. On September

2
6, 2024, Commissioner Mordetzky ordered Mother and Father to
share legal custody of Zachary. On October 2, 2024, the family
court found no exigent circumstances and denied Mother’s
request to change Zachary’s custody. On October 31, 2024,
Commissioner Mordetzky ordered, “Dr. Yu is to continue to treat
[Zachary]. Both parents are to comply with Dr. Yu’s treating
protocol and recommendations.” Dr. Kwi Yun Yu was a
psychiatrist treating Zachary, and she was not affiliated with
UCLA.
On November 20, 2024, the family court again denied
Mother’s request for custody of Zachary. Moreover, the family
court order directed that if Mother violated the October 31, 2024
order, Father was to have tie-breaking power with authority to
follow Dr. Yu’s medical plan without Mother’s consent.
2. The detention report and detention hearing
On October 17, 2024, the Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) received a referral stating that Zachary
was missing ECT appointments and in danger of becoming
gravely disabled. The reporting party was concerned that
Zachary may need to be readmitted to a hospital.
Soon after, DCFS interviewed Father. Father stated he
understood the importance of taking Zachary to the doctor, and
that Zachary missed three ECT appointments because Zachary
did not want to go. Father denied preventing Mother from
helping with Zachary’s medical issues, and noted he worked
closely with the ECT team. Father said he initially had medical
custody of Zachary, but Mother and UCLA made false
accusations against him. Father also said that UCLA was
bullying him. He noted that Dr. Yu was well-informed, and
Dr. Yu would be changing Zachary’s medication.

3
DCFS also interviewed Mother. Mother indicated that
Father did not consent to medication and ECT treatments for
Zachary. Father changed all of the protocols for Zachary, and
Zachary was decomposing, not eating, not speaking, and not
using the restroom. In addition, Zachary was placed on a
psychiatric hold because he was attacking the people around him.
Mother further said Zachary had not been doing well after his
discharge to Father. In contrast, Mother said Zachary had been
doing well while in the hospital. She also said that Father
generally did not allow her to see Zachary.
Thereafter, Colleen McCord, UCLA Associate Chief Clinical
Social Worker, reported that Father does not understand the
severity of Zachary’s health condition. She stated that Zachary
was hospitalized because he was decomposing. McCord
elaborated, saying Father canceled appointments and did not
understand the harm to Zachary from missing appointments.
She stated the ECT treatments were important to keep Zachary
stable. McCord said Father believed Zachary did not need the
treatment and declined a behavioral therapist in his home.
When Zachary was hospitalized, Father refused treatments and
refused to give consent for Zachary’s medical needs. Zachary
improved once Father finally consented to treatment at UCLA.
She said Zachary had severe psychosis, and there was a court
order regarding the treatments, but Father was not following it.
McCord also noted tension with the parents as Dr. Yu changed
Zachary’s medications, but Mother did not agree with the
changes.
On October 25, 2024, DCFS attempted to talk to Zachary at
school, but he declined to talk while raising his arms and making
a fist.

4
That same day, DCFS spoke to the school principal. She
said Zachary’s medical situation was the most serious she had
seen in her 30 years of work. The school principal indicated that
it appeared that ECT treatments stabilized Zachary. In addition,
Father was having issues with Zachary’s medication, and the
parents could not agree on a treatment plan. Father also told the
principal he was seeking a new treatment plan with Dr. Yu.
On October 28, 2024, Regional Center coordinator Tania
Viana said she had been working with the family and had safety
concerns for Zachary. Viana was concerned Zachary would have
to be hospitalized because Father kept canceling medical
appointments. In contrast, Viana did not have similar concerns
about Mother. The parents shared custody over Zachary, but
Father denied Mother access to assist with Zachary. In addition,
Viana indicated Zachary received services from multiple
programs. However, Father was not complying with the
appointments, which compromised the programs. She also noted
that Father had access to extensive in-home services including
daycare from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but he would cancel the
assistance, claiming there were too many people in his home.
DCFS also spoke to Danielle Kelly, an outpatient mental
health advocate. Kelly said that Father contacted her to ask
about the law and his rights regarding Zachary. Kelly stated
that Zachary does not want to go to his ECT appointments,
Zachary has the right to decline, and Zachary can choose his
doctor. She also stated that UCLA has no jurisdiction after
Zachary leaves UCLA hospital, and that Dr. Yu can overrule
UCLA. Kelly said there was no neglect, and she believed Father
was just advocating for his child.

5
DCFS spoke to Caitlin Lehmann who provided voluntary
in-home services to Zachary as a part of a state-funded program.
She had no safety concerns that Zachary was at risk of harm.
DCFS spoke to Cristal Butler Miles, a supervisor from a
service provider that assisted Zachary with his medication in the
family home. She said Father only canceled medication when the
child went to an ECT appointment. Butler Miles stated she had
no concern that Father’s or Mother’s custody put Zachary at risk
of harm.
DCFS spoke with Marilyn Alvarado-Trevino who provided
applied behavioral analysis training to Zachary in-home. She
said Father did not show any resistance to the training. Father
told her there were a lot of people coming in and out of his home,
and he preferred the training via Zoom. She said Father’s
custody of Zachary presented no safety concerns for Zachary.
On November 14, 2024, a DCFS social worker spoke with
the DCFS medical director. The DCFS medical director stated
that Father is not supportive of UCLA’s treatment for Zachary.
In contrast, the DCFS medical director said that Mother
understood the importance of the treatment and was supportive.
On November 19, 2024, DCFS spoke with Dr. Jenny
Nguyen, a UCLA psychiatric doctor who had been treating
Zachary for a year. Dr. Nguyen stated that Zachary was
admitted to UCLA hospital because he experienced psychosis and
catatonia. In an earlier letter, Dr. Nguyen explained that
psychosis and catatonia are both life-threatening conditions.
She also noted that ECT stabilized Zachary. With ECT, Zachary
was able to eat, take oral medication, and say a few sentences.
Dr. Nguyen spoke to Dr. Yu to provide outpatient
recommendations. Dr. Yu told Dr. Nguyen that Zachary had

6
bipolar disorder and had no need for ECT, and Dr. Yu changed
his medications. Dr. Nguyen said that her team had informed
Dr. Nguyen that Father did not want ECT or the new
medications. She stated Father failed to appreciate the severity
of Zachary’s health issues and that Zachary lacked the capacity
to make his own decisions. In contrast, Dr. Nguyen did not have
any concern regarding Mother’s ability to care for Zachary.
Because of UCLA’s concerns regarding Zachary, UCLA filed a
case in mental health court asking for the court to order Zachary
to receive ECT.
As noted above, on November 20, 2024, Mother informed
DCFS that the family court judge denied her request for sole
custody of Zachary.
The next day, on November 21, 2024, DCFS served Father
with a warrant for Zachary’s removal.
In support of Father’s opposition to DCFS’s request to
detain Zachary from him, Dr. Yu submitted a declaration. There,
Dr. Yu indicated that Father consistently complied with
Zachary’s treatment plan. Dr. Yu concluded that Zachary missed
ECT appointments because of Zachary’s behavior and not
because of Father. Dr. Yu stated she agreed with UCLA’s clinical
recommendation for ECT, but disagreed with UCLA’s decision to
treat Zachary with loxapine. Dr. Yu accused UCLA staff of
making false representations. In summary, Dr. Yu concluded,
“I firmly believe that there is no evidence to support the claim
that [Father] neglected or endangered his son.”
On December 11, 2024, the trial court detained Zachary
from Father. The juvenile court granted Father unmonitored
visits while Zachary was at UCLA hospital. The court ordered

7
Zachary not to be removed from UCLA hospital without further
court order unless he was medically released.
3. The jurisdictional report
At the time of the jurisdictional report, Zachary resided
with Mother. On January 2, 2025, DCFS attempted to interview
Zachary for the jurisdictional report, but Zachary refused to
answer any questions.
In speaking with DCFS, Father denied the allegations in
the petition. He indicated Zachary did not attend his ECT
appointments for two weeks because Zachary did not want to go.
Father said Mother was aware that Zachary was not going to his
ECT appointments. Father reported speaking to Dr. Yu about
Zachary’s refusal to go to his appointments. He said, “I did
everything I could to get [Zachary] to go to his appointments.”
He also described an incident where Mother was driving Zachary
to an appointment and Zachary exited Mother’s moving car. He
said that when DCFS came to his house to remove Zachary, he
and Zachary were returning from seeing Dr. Yu. He reiterated,
“[M]y son was not in a life-threatening situation.” Father also
stated that he wanted Zachary to return to his home and that he
was doing a “tremendous job” taking care of his son. He
indicated that he took Zachary’s medical appointments seriously
and that nothing was more important to him than Zachary’s well-
being. Father also said he followed the recommendations of
doctors and therapists including Dr. Yu. He also noted that
Zachary was hospitalized after he lived with Mother in early
December 2024.
In January 2025, Mother reported that neither Father nor
Zachary wanted to go to ECT appointments. Mother said she
twice went to Father’s home to help Zachary attend his

8
appointments. The first time, Zachary kicked her, and she left
because Zachary refused to go to his appointment. The second
time, Zachary would not go with Father, but Zachary was willing
to go in Mother’s car. Zachary was in psychosis, started shouting,
and attempted to open the door while the car was moving. She
stopped the car, and Zachary exited the car to run in the opposite
direction. After that incident, the doctor’s office refused to
provide Zachary with ECT appointments because he continued to
miss them. Prior to the jurisdictional hearing, Mother said she
took Zachary to the hospital because he was in psychosis and had
increased catatonic symptoms. He also punched Mother, a
service provider, and a television.
On January 7, 2025, DCFS spoke with Royal Wade who
was in Father’s home six to seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. to provide services. Wade stated that Zachary did not
want to go to his ECT appointments, and Father attempted to
encourage Zachary to attend by telling him that they could go for
a hike or get food. Wade arrived at Father’s home at 6:00 a.m.,
but Wade could not get Zachary to attend ECT appointments.
UCLA staff also spoke to Zachary to encourage him to attend the
appointments. Wade also said that Mother attempted to help,
but she would trigger Zachary, causing Zachary to lock his door.
Wade also recounted the incident where Zachary got out of
Mother’s car on the way to an ECT appointment. According to
Wade, the car was moving when Zachary exited. On another
occasion, Zachary ran out of an elevator door on the way to an
ECT appointment and ran into traffic. Zachary also punched
Wade and a psychiatrist that day. When Zachary heard the word
“ECT,” he would become resistant.

9
DCFS also spoke with Olivia Marshall, a member of
UCLA’s ECT staff. Marshall described multiple ECT
appointments where Zachary refused to attend. She said that
Mother indicated that Zachary got out of a moving vehicle on his
way to one visit. According to Marshall, Dr. Yu changed
Zachary’s medication without consulting with the UCLA team.
Marshall also noted that Zachary’s behavior was dangerous to
staff.
In making its final assessment in the jurisdictional report,
DCFS concluded that the allegations that Father failed to protect
Zachary were “not true” based on interviews with parents, service
providers, and medical staff. The social workers signed the
report on January 7, 2025.
Thereafter, on January 21, 2025, DCFS filed a first
amended petition that included the previously pled allegation
that Father medically neglected Zachary. In addition, DCFS
newly alleged that both Mother and Father placed Zachary in a
detrimental situation because the parents could not agree on a
mental health treatment program.
The same day DCFS filed its amended petition, it also filed
a last minute report. There, Dr. Yu again stated that Father
followed her medical recommendations. She also said that
Father went “above and beyond” to get Zachary to his ECT
appointments.
In the same last minute report, in a section labeled as
“concerns for Zachary,” DCFS noted that Zachary remained
hospitalized at UCLA and he would not be released until Father
agreed to a treatment plan including an outpatient psychiatrist
recommended by UCLA. As before, Father wanted Zachary to
“have a say” in his treatment plan, and Father also wanted “his

10
own say.” As a result, Mother agreed to UCLA’s suggested plan,
but Father did not. DCFS noted that Zachary had been
hospitalized three times, with the latest hospitalization
beginning on December 1, 2024.
DCFS filed another last minute report on February 5, 2025,
which stated that UCLA’s emergency department placed a hold
on Zachary because UCLA deemed him gravely disabled while
being a danger to himself and others. During this
hospitalization, Zachary punched a behavioral therapist, punched
the television, and drove a pen into his forearm, saying that
voices directed his acts. The DCFS report concluded that
medication changes and parental conflict triggered Zachary’s
earlier hospitalization. In addition, service providers expressed
concerns about whether the parents could agree on an outpatient
psychiatrist for Zachary.
On February 7, 2025, DCFS reported that Mother and
Father agreed to a psychiatrist for Zachary. DCFS also
recommended that Zachary be returned to Mother’s home.
On February 7, 2025, although the trial court did not
conduct the jurisdictional hearing at that time, the court ordered
Zachary released to both parents under DCFS supervision.
On February 10, 2025, DCFS filed another last minute
report indicating Father did not agree to Zachary being released
to Mother. Therefore, the juvenile court held a hearing to
address the dispute and ordered that Zachary was to spend the
first weekend with Mother because the services were already in
place in Mother’s home and ordered the parents to establish a
shared custody agreement. DCFS did an unannounced visit in
Mother’s home the first weekend and noted no concerns. DCFS

11
also noted that the Regional Center would need about two weeks
for services to start in Father’s home.
On February 21, 2025, DCFS filed another last minute
report. There, DCFS noted that Zachary was spending
alternating weeks with his parents. Mother stated that Zachary
struck her in the face and knocked her down in February. On
another occasion, Zachary punched her on her back and shoulder.
When a service provider intervened, Zachary hit her in the chest.
Nonetheless, Mother and Zachary went to an ECT appointment.
According to both Father and a service provider, Zachary was
calmer in Father’s home. In the report, DCFS recommended the
case be dismissed.
The jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held on
February 25, 2025. Although DCFS’s report asked the juvenile
court to dismiss the allegations, DCFS argued at the hearing in
favor of jurisdiction on both counts in the amended petition.
The juvenile court found jurisdiction based on (1) Father’s
medical neglect of Zachary and (2) Mother and Father’s inability
to agree on a treatment plan for Zachary while amending some of
the language in the petition. Regarding Father’s medical neglect,
the trial court explained its reasoning. “There is medical
evidence that has been proven that the child was in a catatonic
state.” “The psychosis needed to be dealt with. And documenting
a response to lithium, and taking him off of all of his
antipsychotics made him psychotic and catatonic.” “And there
were so many doctors [indicating that] E.C.T. was the treatment
plan. Yet Father refused to implement it without a court order.
You can’t wait for [an] order all the time.”
Regarding disposition, the trial court explained, “My order
stands. It is 50-50 custody . . . I am not going to have an

12
advantage for one parent over another.” The minute order
provides, “The Court orders the child released to the home of
parents.”
DISCUSSION
Father makes four arguments in his appeal. First, he
contends the juvenile court erred in detaining Zachary from him
at the outset of the case. Second, he contends the court erred in
asserting jurisdiction regarding the allegations against him.
Third, he asserts that the court erred in ordering joint custody of
Zachary at disposition. Fourth, he argues the disposition order
violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. We find no merit to
his arguments and affirm the trial court’s rulings.
1. The trial court’s detention findings are moot
Father contends there was no basis for the juvenile court to
make emergency detention orders at the outset of the case and to
detain Zachary from him. However, we agree with our colleagues
in Division Two that a dispositional order moots a previous
detention order. (In re Julien H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1084,
1088, fn. 7.) Here, while the trial court issued a preliminary
order detaining Zachary from Father, the trial court returned
Zachary to Father’s custody before the dispositional hearing.
At the dispositional hearing, the trial court ordered that Zachary
was to remain in Father’s care. Thus, we can offer no meaningful
relief to the initial detention order, as Father already has
received the only relief we could provide, return of Zachary to his
care. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 276.) This issue is moot.
(Ibid.)
To argue we should reach the merits, Father points to
authority establishing that detention rulings are appealable,
citing to In re B.P. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 886, 889, and In re
Javier G. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1200. While we agree

13
that detention orders become appealable with the judgment,
these cases do not address whether detention rulings can be
mooted by later dispositional findings. Father also points to In re
M.C. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 137, 148–150, where our colleagues
in Division Two addressed both a detention order and a
dispositional removal order where the juvenile court both
detained a child from a parent and later removed the child from
the same parent at disposition. (Ibid.) Father argues that In re
M.C. could not have considered whether the detention order was
appropriate without first ruling that it was not moot. While
there is some logic to Father’s argument, In re M.C. does not
address mootness, and thus, we conclude it is not authority for an
issue that was not considered. (McConnell v. Advantest America,
Inc. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 596, 611.) Regardless, we conclude the
dispositional ruling returning Zachary to Father’s care moots the
earlier detention order. (In re Julien H., supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1088, fn. 7.)
2. The trial court’s medical neglect finding against
Father is supported by substantial evidence
To assert jurisdiction here, the juvenile court must
conclude that “there is a substantial risk that the child will
suffer, serious physical harm or illness” from “[t]he willful or
negligent failure of the parent or guardian to provide the child
with adequate . . . medical treatment.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300,
subd. (b)(1)(C).) We review a trial court’s jurisdictional findings
for substantial evidence. (In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930,
941.)
Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support
the trial court’s finding that Father medically neglected Zachary.
Over the summer and fall of 2024, UCLA went to mental health

14
court three times to secure rulings ordering potentially life-
saving ECT for Zachary. There is evidence in the record that
Father opposed the treatment. In October 2024, a clinical social
worker concluded that Father did not understand the severity of
Zachary’s health condition, and noted that Father stated that
Zachary did not need ECT. A UCLA doctor also communicated
that the UCLA hospital team concluded that Father did not want
ECT treatments or new medications, and that Father did not
appreciate the severity of Zachary’s health issues. Father also
initially declined to give consent for necessary treatments when
Zachary was hospitalized in October 2024. Moreover, after
Zachary’s third hospitalization in the days before the
jurisdictional hearing, Father delayed consenting to a treatment
plan to secure Zachary an outpatient psychiatrist before
eventually agreeing. Finally, Zachary had intensive, immediate
medical needs, and we must evaluate whether Father presented
a risk to Zachary given those serious medical conditions. Thus,
we find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
assertion of jurisdiction.
On appeal, Father points to evidence in the record
suggesting that he attempted to ensure that Zachary was
attending his medical appointments after the mental health court
orders. Father also points to the family law orders granting
Father physical custody of Zachary and refusing to interrupt his
custody. Father even points to DCFS’s own report concluding
that the medical neglect allegation against Father should be
dismissed. While there certainly is competing evidence in the
record, the juvenile court is the fact finder. The juvenile court
was free to place weight on the evidence that Father was an
obstacle to Zachary receiving life-saving treatment, and it is not

15
our role to second guess these factual determinations. (In re I.J.
(2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Because we find the medical neglect allegation is supported
by substantial evidence, we affirm the jurisdictional finding on
this basis and decline to reach the additional jurisdictional
finding regarding Father’s inability to attend to Zachary’s
medical needs based on his conflicts with Mother. (In re Alexis E.
(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451.)
3. The trial court did not err in releasing Zachary to
both parents
Father challenges the order granting parents joint legal
custody and essentially asserts the child should have been
removed from Mother. In order to remove a child from a parent’s
home, a trial court must find clear and convincing evidence there
“would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the
minor were returned home” and no “reasonable means” exist to
protect the child without removal. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361,
subd. (c)(1).)
Here, Father asserts that the trial court should have
removed Zachary from Mother and granted him sole custody.
In this context, as the party with the burden in trial court to
establish that Zachary should have been removed from Mother,
Father must show that the evidence in the record compels a
finding in his favor on appeal. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th
1517, 1528, overruled on other grounds as stated in
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989.)
Father does not even attempt to meet this standard as he
merely argues “substantial evidence shows [Zachary] could be
seriously harmed if returned to Mother’s care.” Regardless, the

16
evidence does not compel a finding against Mother. Here, there
is evidence in the record that Mother supported ECT treatment
for Zachary over the summer and fall of 2024, that Mother took
Zachary into her home prior to the dispositional hearing, that
Mother attempted to assist Zachary in attending his ECT
appointments when Zachary lived with Father, and that Mother
selected an appropriate outpatient treatment plan prior to
disposition. Thus, Father falls far short of carrying his burden
that the evidence compelled the trial court to remove Zachary
from Mother.
4. Father presents no constitutional violation
Father also claims the dispositional order violated his
Fourteenth Amendment parental rights. He argues, “there was
no substantial danger to [Zachary] at the time of disposition.
Moreover, there were reasonable means short of removal that
were clearly available.” However, the juvenile court did not
remove Zachary from Father at the disposition. The court simply
ordered that the parents were to share custody.
Similarly, the court did not take away Father’s right to
make medical decisions for Zachary at the disposition. Rather,
the court ordered that the parents were to share custody and
decisionmaking. Nonetheless, Father complains that the trial
court improperly overrode his parental “decision-making rights”
because according to Father, “[t]he record contains no evidence
that Father failed or refused to follow medical guidance.”
It appears that Father merely re-argues his theory that the trial
court should not have exercised jurisdiction, but as we note
above, the record supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional
orders. Finally, in his reply, Father appears to argue that the
emergency detention at the outset of this case violated his

17
Fourteenth Amendment rights, but we decline to address this
argument as Father did not raise it in his opening brief.
Thus, this claim fails.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders
are affirmed.

VIRAMONTES, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

WILEY, J.

SCHERB, J.

18