In re M.C. CA1/5

── In re M.C. CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 In re M.C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re M.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL A173979 SERVICES AGENCY, (Alameda County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. JD-039238-01) v. S.C., Defendant and Appellant. S.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition regarding M.C. (Minor). We hold that S.C.’s appeal of the jurisdictional order is moot and he lacks standing to appeal the dispositional order, and we therefore dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND We recite only those background facts relevant to our consideration of this appeal. In April 2025, the Alameda County Social Services Agency 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 (Agency) filed a section 300 petition regarding Minor, a newborn. The petition identified S.C. as the alleged father. As subsequently amended, the petition included allegations that S.C. “has distinct and persistent mental health issues” and further “has active substance use (alcohol) issues,” both of which inhibit his ability to safely parent Minor and place Minor at substantial risk of abuse or neglect. At a May 2025 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, S.C. was present with his attorney. S.C. testified that he was not married to Minor’s mother (Mother); during her pregnancy, Mother told him Minor might not be his child; and he was at the hospital with Mother when Minor was born. The juvenile court ordered paternity testing for S.C. and continued the hearing. In June 2025, at the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing, S.C. was present but had missed the scheduled paternity test. The Agency social worker represented that S.C. had said his missing the test was “alcohol related.” S.C.’s attorney requested the court maintain the order for paternity testing, and otherwise submitted. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the amended petition as to S.C. and sustained additional allegations as to Mother. The court removed Minor from the physical custody of Mother and S.C., and ordered reunification services for Mother but not S.C. S.C. appealed. DISCUSSION S.C.’s primary challenge is that, as an alleged father, he was not Minor’s “parent” within the meaning of the relevant statutes. He argues that, therefore, either the court lacked statutory authorization to issue such orders as to him or the orders were not supported by substantial evidence that he was Minor’s “parent.” He also argues that the court erroneously 2 accepted his counsel’s submission at the continued jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The jurisdictional order sustained findings as to both S.C. and Mother. “[T]he principle that ‘[d]ependency jurisdiction attaches to a child, not to his or her parent’ [citation], means that ‘ “[a]s long as there is one unassailable jurisdictional finding, it is immaterial that another might be inappropriate” ’ [citation]. Thus, where jurisdictional findings have been made as to both p