In re Drake M

In In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, the father challenged a single jurisdictional finding against him involving his use of medical marijuana. Because this single jurisdictional finding was the difference between the father being an offending parent versus a nonoffending parent, the appellate court addressed the merits of his appeal. The Drake M. court noted that DCFS had failed to show that the father was unable to care for his child due to substance abuse. Without more, mere use of drugs by a parent is not a sufficient basis on which dependency jurisdiction can be found. (Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) There was no evidence that the father had a substance abuse problem or that the father was unable to supervise or protect his child. (Id. at pp. 767-769.) The jurisdictional finding involving the father was therefore reversed. (Id. at p. 771.) The Court summarized the factors influencing whether a court will exercise its discretion to reach the merits of a challenge to a jurisdictional finding. According to Drake M., a court will generally reach the merits when the finding in question "(1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal (see, e.g., In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 454); (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings (In re D.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1015; see also, In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1494); or (3) 'could have other consequences for the appellant, beyond jurisdiction' (In re I.A., supra, at p. 1493, not reaching the merits of an appeal where an alleged father 'has not suggested a single specific legal or practical consequence from this finding, either within or outside the dependency proceedings')." (Drake M., supra, at pp. 762-763.) In Drake M., the court determined the difference between father being an "offending" parent versus a "non-offending" parent was enough prejudice to warrant the exercise of discretion. The court reasoned, "Such a distinction may have far reaching implications with respect to future dependency proceedings in this case and father's parental rights." (Id. at p. 763.) In Drake M., the father did not challenge jurisdictional findings based on mother's extensive history of drug abuse, but appealed the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders against him based solely on his use of medical marijuana. The child was 14 months old, well fed, and well cared for, and father was employed. The Department reported that father appeared capable of providing for the child's basic needs, and at disposition, the court had ordered the child to remain placed with father, but also ordered father to attend drug counseling and undergo drug testing. (Id. at pp. 758, 760-762.)