Opinion
B300785
08-18-2020
In re A.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL G. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Manuel G. Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Herminia C. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 19CCJP03975A, 19CCJP03958A/B APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Manuel G. Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Herminia C. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
In this dependency matter, Herminia C. (mother) and Manuel G. (father) appeal from the court's jurisdiction and disposition orders. The dependency case began after law enforcement officers executing a search warrant discovered a sizeable marijuana grow in the home where mother and father, together with three children (the minors), ages 1, 2 and 6, were living with father's extended family. The parents knew of the marijuana grow, the location of the grow was accessible to the minors, and it contained a significant number of marijuana plants, fertilizer, chemicals, as well as exposed electrical wiring that supplied related equipment. In addition, although the parents are not drug users, the family lived with a paternal uncle who smoked marijuana in the home and on the property several times a day. The minors had been routinely exposed to marijuana smoke and the oldest child said the smell made her want to "throw up."
The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), asserting jurisdiction because the parents failed to protect the three minors from the dangerous home environment. The court concluded dependency jurisdiction was warranted and the parents challenge the court's jurisdiction findings. Father also challenges the portion of his case plan requiring him to participate in counseling relating to case issues. Finding no error, we affirm.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother and father have two children together, Y.G. (born in 2016) and M.G. (born in 2018). Their family unit also includes father's child, A.G. (born in 2012), who has a different biological mother. Prior to the Department's involvement with this family, A.G.'s biological mother had minimal interaction with A.G.
A.G.'s biological mother is not a party to this appeal.
The Department responded to a law enforcement referral on June 6, 2019. On that day, law enforcement executed a search warrant at the home in which the family was living with several extended family members including a paternal uncle (the uncle). During the course of the search, law enforcement located a marijuana grow in the bedroom used by the uncle. The bedroom contained more than 34 marijuana plants as well as chemicals and fertilizer. Many of those items were on the floor or within easy reach of the minors. Apparently, the uncle had recently sold many other marijuana plants. In addition, the room had exposed electrical wiring which had been reconfigured to support growing equipment including LED lights, fans, and cloning machines. Although the room had a ventilation system, the room had a strong odor of marijuana. Some of the plants were found on the floor, next to a mat where the minors' five-year-old cousin had been sleeping. A large marijuana plant was growing in the backyard.
The home is owned by the paternal grandparents who also reside there. In addition to the grandparents and the family at issue, three other adults and a 12-year-old child reside in the home. The uncle's five-year-old child and that child's mother were also sleeping at the home when the search warrant was executed.
Father was arrested on suspicion of credit card fraud, which activity had been the target of the search warrant. The uncle was cited for cultivation of cannabis as he had more plants than legally permitted. Law enforcement also confiscated the plants. The minors and their cousin were at the home during the search.
A Department social worker came to the home and interviewed the investigating officer as well as various family members. The uncle stated that he was growing marijuana for personal use and generally smoked a blunt once or twice daily. He denied smoking around the minors, however. Both parents stated they were aware that the uncle smoked marijuana, but they repeatedly denied that the minors were ever in the uncle's room or near the marijuana plants and related items. Mother also claimed the uncle's room was kept locked, but other residents in the home indicated the room was not kept locked.
The social worker observed that Y.G. (age 2) and M.G. (age 1) were curious and enjoyed walking and exploring their environment. In the social worker's view, the minors Y.G. and M.G. were naturally curious and not yet developmentally able to avoid interactions with the marijuana plants, chemicals, and fertilizers found on the bedroom floor. The social worker advised mother and father that the exposed wiring, marijuana plants, chemicals, and fertilizer—much of which was located on the floor or within easy reach of the minors—posed a risk of serious physical harm to the minors. The parents repeated their claim that the minors were never in the uncle's room.
On June 21, 2019, the Department filed petitions under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging the parents failed to protect the minors from a dangerous home environment. At the Department's request, the court authorized the minors' detention from the parents. The minors were initially placed in shelter care but were relocated to the maternal grandmother's house.
During the Department's subsequent investigation, mother stated (contrary to her initial statement) that she was unaware of the marijuana plants in the uncle's bedroom and that she thought the marijuana smell was coming from the neighbors. She denied the two youngest minors had access to the uncle's bedroom, indicating that M.G. was unable to reach the doorknob and that Y.G. did not know how to turn a doorknob. As for A.G., mother said she had seen A.G. in the room several times before the marijuana plants were there. After that, mother said, A.G. "knew not to be in there." Father also said the two youngest minors were unable to access the uncle's bedroom and confirmed that he and mother consistently told the children they could not go into anyone else's bedroom. Father also denied seeing the marijuana plants and denied that the uncle smoked near the children.
A.G., who was then six years old, provided a different perspective during her interview with the social worker. She said she knew what smoking was and described it as "something that does not smell good 'and goes inside my breath.' " According to A.G., the uncle smoked in front of her and one of her cousins and smoked when she was outside in the backyard. She also said she knew that the uncle smoked in his room because she could smell it. A.G. described being upset when the uncle smoked and said she was " 'allergic to smoking.' " Elaborating, A.G. said " 'I feel bad. When I go to sleep, I drink my saliva and I can still smell it.' " She also said the uncle sometimes smoked in front of Y.G. and M.G. and stated that "the smell makes [me] feel like 'throwing up.' "
A.G. also accurately described the contents of the uncle's room, i.e., " 'plants that you can smoke and little plants and big plants and weed inside the water.' " She knew that some plants were inside the uncle's closet and others were in the room. In addition, A.G. disclosed that she, as well as M.G. and Y.G., would go into the uncle's room to watch television and play with their cousin. She said the door to the room was sometimes locked, but at other times the uncle would open the door and they could go inside the room.
In early July, a social worker visited the family home and did not see any marijuana plants. The exposed wiring had not been repaired, however. Father told the Department that the uncle had moved out of the home, but more recently he had moved back in. Father indicated he planned to look for new housing for his family so that they would not be living with the uncle.
In a last minute information to the court filed September 3, 2019, the Department reported that mother had found new housing in mid-July and was then sharing a two bedroom apartment with a childhood friend. Pending Department approval, father and the minors planned to move into the apartment as well. The children would share one bedroom, mother's friend would occupy the other bedroom, and the parents would sleep in the living room. A social worker visited the apartment and noted the apartment was clean and appropriately furnished, with no apparent hazards for the children. In light of that recent change, the Department recommended returning the minors to the custody of mother and father.
It appears that father and the minors were then living with the maternal grandmother.
The matter was adjudicated on September 3, 2019. After hearing argument from all counsel, the court expressed concern that father "seemed to act as if this wasn't really a problem, which is concerning, particularly given the long history of [the uncle's] use. And the operation that was going on was done in—on the premises with young children."
The court found true the following jurisdictional allegation as to Y.G. and M.G. under section 300, subdivision (b):
"The children['s parents] created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the children in that over 34 marijuana plants, including grown plants and small plants were found in the children's home, within access of the children. Cloning machines, chemicals, fertilizer and exposed wires were found in the home and within access of the children. The children's paternal uncle ... a current abuser of marijuana, resided in the children's home and had unlimited access to the children. The home had a strong smell of marijuana. On 6/6/19, the paternal uncle had a positive toxicology screen for marijuana. The mother and father knew of the paternal uncle's substance abuse and criminal activity and failed to protect the children in that the mother and father allowed the paternal uncle to reside in the children's home and have unlimited access to the children. Such a detrimental and endangering home environment established for the children by the mother and father and the mother and father's failure to protect the children, endangers the children's physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home environment, and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage danger and failure to protect."
The court found true a similarly-worded jurisdictional allegation regarding A.G. in count b-1 as to father only. The court also found that mother qualified as a presumed mother of A.G. As to disposition, the court ordered the minors released to the home of the parents. The case plans for the parents included parenting classes, five on-demand or random drug tests, and individual counseling.
As to A.G., the court also sustained a jurisdictional allegation in count b-2 regarding A.G.'s biological mother's use of marijuana and methamphetamine.
Mother and father timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother and father contend the court's jurisdictional findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Father also challenges the court's disposition to the extent it requires him to participate in individual counseling.
1. Justiciability and Merits Review
Initially, we must address several matters relating to justiciability.
It is a fundamental principle of appellate practice that an appeal will not be entertained unless it presents a justiciable issue. (In re I.A. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489-1490.) " 'A judicial tribunal ordinarily may consider and determine only an existing controversy, and not a moot question or abstract proposition. ... [A]s a general rule it is not within the function of the court to act upon or decide a moot question or speculative, theoretical or abstract question or proposition, or a purely academic question, or to give an advisory opinion on such a question or proposition. ...' " (Wilson v. L.A. County Civil Service Com. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 450, 452-453; In re I.A., at p. 1490.) An important requirement for justiciability is the availability of "effective" relief—that is, the prospect of a remedy that can have a practical, tangible impact on the parties' conduct or legal status. This court must decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before us. (Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Com. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1205-1206; see also In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1498 [a case is moot when it is " 'impossible for the appellate court to grant the appellant effective relief' "]; Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1503 ["A case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical impact or cannot provide the parties with effective relief"].)
First, we note that Y.G. and M.G. are no longer under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. Although the Department did not request that we dismiss the appeals as to Y.G. and M.G. as moot, we could decline to consider the parents' challenges to dependency jurisdiction because we cannot provide any effective relief at this point. But because the court's orders may prejudice the parents in future family law or dependency proceedings, " 'in an abundance of caution and because dismissal of the appeal operates as an affirmance of the underlying judgment or order [citations], we consider the merits of [the] appeal.' " (In re C.V. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 566, 571.)
On May 7, 2020, the Department filed a request for judicial notice of five exhibits, including the court's March 2, 2020 minute order terminating dependency jurisdiction as to Y.G. and M.G. The parents did not oppose the request. We granted the Department's request on May 27, 2020.
Second, although the parents' opening briefs challenged the court's requirement that they submit to drug testing, the parents have completed that requirement. The Department contends that portion of the parents' appeal is moot because we are unable to provide any effective relief on that issue. The parents concede the point and we agree.
Finally, and as to A.G., the Department argues we need not address father's challenge to the court's jurisdictional finding on count b-1 because the finding on count b-2 (regarding A.G.'s biological mother) is unchallenged and provides an independent basis for dependency jurisdiction. " 'When a dependency petition alleges multiple grounds for its assertion that a minor comes within the dependency court's jurisdiction, a reviewing court can affirm the [trial] court's finding of jurisdiction over the minor if any one of the statutory bases for jurisdiction that are enumerated in the petition is supported by substantial evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court need not consider whether any or all of the other alleged statutory grounds for jurisdiction are supported by the evidence.' [Citation.] However, we generally will exercise our discretion and reach the merits of a challenge to any jurisdictional finding when the finding (1) serves as the basis for dispositional orders that are also challenged on appeal [citation]; (2) could be prejudicial to the appellant or could potentially impact the current or future dependency proceedings [citations]; or (3) 'could have other consequences for [the appellant], beyond jurisdiction' [citation]." (In re Drake M. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763; see In re M.W. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1452.)
We conclude that merits review of father's challenge to count b-1 of the petition regarding A.G. is warranted. The finding that father failed to protect A.G. from a dangerous home environment, including repeated exposure to marijuana smoke that made her feel sick and easy access to marijuana plants, fertilizer, and chemicals, could potentially impact the current dependency proceedings regarding A.G. or future dependency proceedings concerning any of the minors.
2. The court's jurisdiction findings are supported by substantial evidence.
2.1. Legal Principles
We review jurisdictional and dispositional orders for substantial evidence. (In re D.C. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 41, 55.) In doing so, we view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's determinations, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the court's findings and orders. Issues of fact and credibility are the province of the court and we neither reweigh the evidence nor exercise our independent judgment. (In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773.)
Section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorizes a juvenile court to exercise dependency jurisdiction over a child if the "child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent ... to adequately supervise or protect the child, or ... by the inability of the parent ... to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's ... mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse." (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), requires the Department to demonstrate the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) neglectful conduct, failure, or inability by the parent; (2) causation; and (3) serious physical harm or illness or a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness. (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 848; see also In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624.)
In the present case, several factors taken together led the court to conclude it was appropriate to exercise dependency jurisdiction over the minors: the minors' exposure to the uncle's drug use, the accessibility of the marijuana grow (including easy access to plants, fertilizer, chemicals, and exposed electrical wiring), and the parents' failure to acknowledge and take responsibility for the serious risks those factors presented to the minors. We discuss these issues in turn.
2.2. Exposure to Drug Use and Secondhand Smoke
As a general matter, the legislature has declared, "The provision of a home environment free from the negative effects of substance abuse is a necessary condition for the safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of the child." (§ 300.2.) That statement notwithstanding, our courts have repeatedly held that drug use by a parent, standing alone, is typically inadequate to establish dependency jurisdiction. (In re Drake M., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 764.) Parental drug use does not form the basis of jurisdiction in this case. But the secondary effects of repeated exposure to marijuana smoke may, along with other relevant evidence, support dependency jurisdiction in an appropriate case. (See, e.g., In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 451-452.)
Here, although there was no indication either mother or father had been using drugs, the minors were exposed to their uncle's persistent drug use. Six-year-old A.G.'s description of her home environment is compelling evidence supporting the court's jurisdiction findings. A.G. said she knew what smoking was and described it as "something that does not smell good 'and goes inside my breath.' " According to A.G., the uncle smoked in front of her and one of her cousins, and when she was outside in the backyard. She also said she knew that the uncle smoked in his room because she could smell it. A.G. described being upset when the uncle smoked and said she was " 'allergic to smoking.' " Elaborating, A.G. said " 'I feel bad. When I go to sleep, I drink my saliva and I can still smell it.' " She also said the uncle sometimes smoked in front of Y.G. and M.G.—who were both toddlers—and that "the smell makes her feel like 'throwing up.' "
Consistent with the applicable standard of review, we reject mother's interpretation of conflicting evidence in a manner adverse to the court's ruling. For example, mother claims neither Y.G. nor M.G. was old enough to walk or enter a room on his or her own. She also asserts that everyone, except A.G., said that the uncle kept his bedroom door closed and that Y.G. and M.G. were never in the room. Mother also urges the evidence "did not establish with certainty" that the uncle ever smoked in the home or in the presence of the minors. The evidence cited by mother is contradicted by other evidence in the record upon which the court relied. "[W]e do not consider whether there is evidence from which the juvenile court could have drawn a different conclusion but whether there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the court did draw. [Citation.]" (In re M.R. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 101, 108.)
2.3. Access to Marijuana Plants, Fertilizer, and Chemicals
It is well established that "[l]eaving drugs or drug paraphernalia within the child's reach is an example of negligent conduct that will support section 300, subdivision (b) dependency jurisdiction. (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1651, [drug paraphernalia]; In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 825 ['allowing access to drugs, with nothing to prevent [child] from succumbing to the temptation to ingest them'].)" (In re Yolanda L. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 987, 993.) Exercise of dependency court jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), is proper when a child is "of such tender years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to [his or her] physical health and safety." (In re Rocco M., at p. 824; see In re Christopher R. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1216.)
The court was understandably concerned that the minors had been exposed to the uncle's marijuana growing operation—and several resulting hazards—in their home. Substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that the minors had been exposed to a substantial risk of harm in this regard. According to a Department social worker, and notwithstanding the parents' claims that A.G. had not been in the uncle's bedroom, A.G. accurately described the contents of the uncle's room, i.e., " 'plants that you can smoke and little plants and big plants and weed inside the water.' " She also knew that some plants were inside the uncle's closet and others were in other parts of the room. A.G. also disclosed that she, as well as M.G. and Y.G., would go into the uncle's room to watch television and play with their cousin. The bedroom contained more than 34 marijuana plants as well as chemicals and fertilizer, much of which was either on the floor or within easy reach of the minors. And perhaps of greatest concern, the door to the room was sometimes locked, but at other times the uncle would open the door and they could go inside the room.
The parents contend, without citing any pertinent legal authority, that residing in a home that contains a marijuana grow is insufficient to establish dependency jurisdiction. We reject the argument because, even assuming courts have so held—a matter we need not address—the court did not assume jurisdiction over the minors merely because a grow was present in their home. As we have said, multiple factors including the uncle's drugs use in the presence of the minors as well as the minors' easy access to the marijuana plants, fertilizer, chemicals, and exposed wiring together form the basis of jurisdiction here.
The parents also seem to contend that even if the minors had accessed the uncle's room, they should not be held responsible because they repeatedly told the children, particularly A.G., not to go into that room. We agree with the Department that "[s]imply telling a six-year-old child to not enter a hazardous area hardly qualifies as a protective measure." This is particularly so where the children are very young (Y.G. was two and M.G. was one) and, at least with respect to A.G., the parents are aware the child exhibits oppositional behavior. Mother reported that A.G. "doesn't listen to her teacher and she does tantrums at school." She reportedly "hides under the tables," "grabs other kid[s'] backpacks and throws them," and has thrown sticks or pencils at her teacher. On at least one occasion, A.G. was removed from class due to behavioral issues. Indeed, A.G.'s teacher recommended counseling to address behavioral issues. And mother told the Department she and father had been stricter with A.G. recently because "[s]he doesn't listen to anyone anymore."
2.4. Refusal to Acknowledge Serious Environmental Risks
The parents also claim that even if the children had been exposed to a risk of harm in the past, that risk had been eliminated by the time the adjudication took place. We disagree.
"Although section 300 generally requires proof the child is subject to the defined risk of harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1396; In re Rocco M.[, supra,] 1 Cal.App.4th [at p.] 824), the court need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.) The court may consider past events in deciding whether a child presently needs the court's protection. (Ibid.) A parent's ' "[p]ast conduct may be probative of current conditions" if there is reason to believe that the conduct will continue.' (In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453, 461.)" (In re Christopher R., supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215.)
Mother and father argue that no risk of harm existed at the time of the adjudication because by that time, the family had moved into a new residence. Accordingly, the minors were no longer living with the uncle and were not exposed to the risks associated with his marijuana use and grow operation. We have several responses.
First, the court considered the parents' recent relocation and determined, as to disposition, that the minors could then safely be released to the parents' custody. But to the extent the court based its jurisdictional findings on either the weight of that evidence or the credibility of the parents (who, as noted, had provided some conflicting statements during the investigation), we will not substitute our judgment for the court's. (See In re I.J., supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 773 [noting appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment on issues of fact and credibility].)
Second, although the court was primarily concerned with risks present in the paternal grandparents' home and relating to the uncle, the court was also troubled by the parents' poor judgment, i.e., their apparent failure to recognize that the home environment had been extremely dangerous for the minors or, if they did recognize the risks, their failure to take appropriate precautions. In addition, the court expressed dismay at the parents' reluctance to take the situation seriously and to accept responsibility during the dependency proceedings. Those factors—the parents' apparent inability to appreciate dangerous conditions in the home and their lack of urgency in remediating those conditions—were not mitigated by their relocation. And those factors caused the court to be concerned that the minors would be at a substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future. Although those factors standing alone might not support dependency jurisdiction, it was appropriate for the court to include those factors in its jurisdictional analysis. (See In re M.R., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 110 [rejecting challenge to jurisdiction based in part on parents' minimization of mother's endangering conduct]; see also In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge"].)
At the time of adjudication, the parents' living situation was in transition and it was unclear whether the new situation would be stable. In light of those facts, the parents' past conduct, the minors' exposure to drug use, and the parents' failure to protect the children from easy access to drugs, chemicals, fertilizer, and exposed electrical wiring, the court appropriately assumed jurisdiction over the minors to ensure their safety. Our courts have repeatedly held that a juvenile court "need not wait until a child is seriously abused or injured to assume jurisdiction and take the steps necessary to protect the child." (In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.)
We also note that the court terminated dependency jurisdiction approximately six months later.
3. The court did not abuse its discretion by requiring father to participate in individual counseling.
Father contends the court abused its discretion by requiring him to participate in individual counseling. Father asserts he was not neglectful and has no history of drug use or drug-related criminal activity. Accordingly, father argues, the court had no basis to order counseling.
Father's argument is easily rejected. First, and contrary to father's assertion, the court found father was neglectful and that neglect served as the basis for jurisdiction over all three minors. The court's conclusion that father could improve his parenting and decision-making skills, and therefore individual counseling would benefit the minors, finds support in the record.
Second, even if the court had not made a specific jurisdictional finding regarding father's neglectful conduct, the court still had the authority to require him to participate in counseling. "[A] jurisdictional finding involving the conduct of a particular parent is not necessary for the court to enter orders binding on that parent, once dependency jurisdiction has been established." (In re I.A., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1492.)
Finally, under section 362, subdivision (a), the court has broad authority to "make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child ... ." Based on this record—and particularly the court's concern about the parents' willingness and ability to address safety issues in the home—we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in requiring father to participate in individual counseling relating to case issues.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:
EGERTON, J.
DHANIDINA, J.