Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. CK79403 Donna Levin, Juvenile Court Referee.
Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
S.A. (mother) appeals jurisdictional findings and the dispositional order made with respect to her daughter, two-year-old B.G. Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding or the removal of B.G. from her care. Mother additionally contends the orders requiring her to attend a parenting class and to test for alcohol are unnecessary and will impede reunification. We reject mother’s contentions and affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Hotline referral and investigation; prior case; non-detained petition filed.
On February 17, 2011, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a referral indicating B.G. was a victim of emotional abuse by mother and father, and suspected physical abuse by an unknown perpetrator. The caller stated the parents smoked marijuana on a daily basis and often are heard arguing over marijuana. Other times the caller has heard noises followed immediately by the child crying uncontrollably. The caller also reported heavy foot traffic of suspicious characters entering and leaving the home. The caller suspected these individuals are drug users who pose a danger to the child.
Social worker Mandarino made an unannounced visit to the family’s apartment. Mother denied the allegations and stated the family recently had a dependency case which arose because, in October of 2009, mother and B.G. were living with mother’s sister who was a methamphetamine addict. Mother’s niece and B.G. were placed in foster care because of her sister’s drug use. Mother stated she completed her case plan which included drug testing and treatment, parenting classes and domestic violence counseling. B.G. was returned to mother in July of 2010, and the case was closed in January of 2011. Mother moved to her current residence in Harbor City in October of 2010. Since that time, mother has smoked marijuana approximately three times but never in the presence of B.G. Mother stated she was scheduled for gall bladder surgery and was taking Vicodin for pain. Mother denied any suspicious activity at the home but indicated friends from Santa Clarita visited on a few weekends. Mother was willing to drug test but was unable to do so the next day because she was having blood work done. Mother stated she and father disciplined the child with timeouts and denied any form of physical discipline. Mandarino reported the family lives in a one-bedroom furnished apartment. B.G. sleeps in a crib in the parents’ bedroom. Mandarino observed no safety hazards in the home. B.G. appeared well groomed and in good health with no marks or bruises. B.G. appeared comfortable in mother’s presence and her development appeared to be age appropriate.
The sustained allegations of the dependency petition in the prior case alleged mother has a history of substance abuse and is a current user of marijuana and alcohol, which renders mother unable to provide regular care. The petition also alleged father has a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of marijuana. Another count alleged two incidents of domestic violence committed by father while under the influence of alcohol and prescription medication. These incidents occurred in the presence of B.G. and father’s son and, on one occasion, B.G. was in father’s arms during the altercation. In one incident, father grabbed mother by the throat, elbowed her in the head and threw her on the bed.
Mandarino made unannounced visits to two neighboring apartments. The resident of the first apartment indicated he knows the family well, has no concerns regarding abuse or neglect, and permits his young son to play with B.G. The neighbor stated he feels the parents may “give in too much” to B.G. because he hears her tantrums and mother and father just “talk[] to the child.” The second neighbor indicated he had no concerns regarding abuse or neglect of any of the children in the building and he reported no excessive crying or suspicious activities in the apartments.
The next day, Mandarino returned to interview father. Father indicated they got along well with their neighbors except a lady who lives below them who complains about noise. Father stated he recently smoked marijuana when mother’s friends visited. However, B.G. was asleep at the time. Father has prescriptions for Vicodin, OxyContin, Asoma, Xanax and Aderol but he has not taken them recently. Father admitted he experimented with methamphetamine, marijuana and cocaine in high school but denied any current substance abuse. Father stated he disciplines B.G. with time outs and does not pay attention to her tantrums.
On February 22, 2011, Mandarino spoke to the family’s previous social worker, Bolden, who stated mother complied with all court orders. However, Bolden suspected father lived with mother while the case was open. Bolden indicated father worked frequently and failed to complete drug testing. Also, father was unable to complete a drug treatment program because he was taking prescribed medication. Bolden had no concern regarding physical abuse of B.G. and the home always appeared clean and free of hazards.
On February 23, 2011, mother advised Mandarino she had been released from the hospital following gall bladder surgery and would be taking Vicodin for the next two days. Mandarino told mother to test on Monday, February 28, 2011. Mother tested positive on that date for cannabinoids (3874 NG/ML), but negative for all other substances. On February 22, 2011, father tested positive for cannabinoids (404 NG/ML), but negative for all other substances.
On March 15, 2011, Mandarino advised mother the Department was concerned because mother’s test results showed high levels of marijuana, the previous dependency case was closed in January of 2011, and father recently had been arrested for possession of marijuana. Mandarino indicated a non-detained petition would be filed in order to provide the family services.
Father’s CLETS results indicated father was cited for possession of marijuana on August 6, 2010, and on October 18, 2010, he was convicted of a misdemeanor.
Mandarino interviewed the neighbor who lived in the apartment beneath the parents’ apartment. The neighbor complained B.G. cried an “unusual amount for a child that age” and, on one occasion two months earlier, the neighbor saw men exiting the apartment and “wobbling” down the stairs, which suggested drug use to her.
On March 21, 2011, mother and father attended a Team Decision Making meeting and both signed a safety plan pursuant to which they agreed the family would be referred for family preservation services, both parents would participate in random drug testing, B.G. would be assessed for play therapy to address her tantrums and mother would attend individual counseling through family preservation services.
2. The Department files a non-detained petition.
A non-detained petition filed March 24, 2011, alleged B.G. was at risk of harm within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). At the detention hearing, the juvenile court released B.G. “home-of-parents.” The juvenile court ordered family preservation services, including weekly drug testing.
Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Dependency investigator Ramos prepared the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report filed May 5, 2011. In an interview on April 29, 2011, mother admitted experimenting with drugs in high school but she denied a drug or alcohol problem and stated she only smoked marijuana socially and never on a daily basis. After B.G. was detained in the first dependency case, mother lived in sober living homes and drug tested. Mother stated she and father smoked marijuana with friends on one occasion when friends visited but B.G. was asleep with the door closed at the time.
Mother told Ramos she had been unable to drug test on April 26, 2011, due to her work schedule. Ramos offered mother an opportunity to make up the missed test but mother declined due to father’s work schedule. Mother and father indicated they would be unable to drug test before May 2, 2011, as father had to pick up his pay check.
The family’s previous social worker, Bolden, told Ramos that, upon termination of jurisdiction in the first case, Bolden told mother not to permit father to have unmonitored contact with B.G. Bolden made unannounced visits to the Harbor City home because he believed father was residing with mother and that father’s failure to address his drug problem had a negative effect on mother. In this case, father failed to test on April 5 and 13, 2011, and claimed a work conflict with respect to a test on April 29, 2011. The report indicated mother was employed part time and neither mother nor father had drug tested since their positive tests in February of 2011.
Ramos expressed “serious concerns with the father having complete access to his child despite his drug addiction.” The Department recommended placement of B.G. with mother on condition she participate in a drug treatment program, parenting class and family maintenance services.
A last minute information report filed May 5, 2011, indicated mother submitted to a scheduled drug test on May 2, 2011, with negative results. The report further indicated mother told social worker Eddings she could not drug test on April 29, 2011, because mother had to babysit.
3. B.G. is detained.
A detention report filed June 28, 2011, indicated father tested positive for methamphetamine on June 1, 2011, and mother tested positive for morphine on May 26, 2011. At a Team Decision Making meeting on June 7, 2011, father admitted smoking methamphetamine at a funeral in Santa Clarita which mother and B.G. did not attend.
Mother and father agreed to continue drug testing and father agreed to participate in outpatient treatment. After receiving an invalid test result for mother, mother told Eddings she drank a lot of water to ensure she would be able to urinate. The lab confirmed this could invalidate a test result.
Eddings reported the family was scheduled to begin family preservation services on May 2, 2011. The counselor was to meet with the family twice a week to provide parent training and evaluation of B.G.’s tantrums. On June 20, 2011, mother told Eddings the counselor’s hours conflicted with her work schedule. When Eddings suggested reducing the frequency of the services, mother indicated she did not wish to participate further.
That same day, father stated an outpatient program he had contacted said his use of prescription drugs would prevent him from participating. However, the program advised Eddings it would not tell any client he or she could not enroll with prescriptions. Eddings made an intake appointment for father, advised father of the time and told him he risked having B.G. detained if he missed the appointment. Father said he would be there. Father missed the appointment and rescheduled it for June 24, 2011.
On June 23, 2011, Eddings, social worker Grant, and a police officer detained B.G. at the home. Grant thought father might be under the influence. Father ran from the kitchen to the bathroom and vomited. Mother stated, “No, no. I’ll leave with her or he’ll leave. Please don’t take her.” The child appeared disheveled and dirty, with smudges on her hands and pants, and matted and tangled hair. Mother indicated B.G. was ill and they planned to take her to the doctor the next day. Mother cried and hugged the child but B.G. remained quiet and had a flat affect.
On June 28, 2011, Eddings filed an ex-parte application for B.G.’s detention, citing father’s unaddressed methamphetamine abuse and failure to enroll in a drug program, and mother’s positive test for morphine on May 26, 2011. Eddings noted mother claimed she took father’s Oxycodone for pain and she had not yet been to the doctor. Eddings concluded B.G.’s safety no longer could be assured in the care of mother or father.
At the detention hearing on June 28, 2011, the juvenile court ordered mother and father to submit to random weekly drug tests and granted them monitored visitation.
On July 7, 2011, the Department reported the parents had visited B.G. twice and both visits had gone well. Mother and father drug tested on June 21 and 30, 2011, with negative results.
4. The adjudication.
On July 14, 2011, the juvenile court adjudicated the petition. Father submitted a waiver of rights. As to mother, the juvenile court received the social reports into evidence.
Ramos testified she interviewed mother on one occasion in the family home. Ramos noted the home was in good order and nothing about B.G.’s appearance or behavior caused Ramos any concern. Ramos gave mother the opportunity to submit to drug testing that day but mother declined.
Eddings testified she met with mother numerous times in the family home before B.G. was detained. During her visits, the home was in good condition and she observed no marks or bruises on B.G. Eddings indicated the child and the parents shared a close, affectionate relationship. B.G. was detained because father missed his drug program intake appointment and because mother tested positive for morphine and had one diluted test. Eddings agreed B.G. showed no signs of abuse when she was detained. Eddings indicated she would not be concerned for B.G.’s safety if father moved from the home. Family preservation services were scheduled for twice a week in the family home. However, “there was a week that mom worked all week and couldn’t arrange the schedule, and so the family preservation worker took that as noncompliance.”
Eddings testified B.G.’s foster parents reported the child has become aggressive, biting and hitting other children in the home. Eddings indicated the Department’s position was not to return B.G. to mother at this time.
Father testified he would move from the home to allow B.G. to be returned to mother and he would comply with an order for monitored visitation.
Ramos was recalled and testified the recommendation was not to return B.G. to mother even if father were ordered to move from the home because father did not comply with a prior order for monitored visitation. Although the parents had been instructed to provide the social worker with their work schedules so they could drug test when they were not scheduled to work, neither had done so. Ramos indicated Eddings had spoken to the lab and it ruled out Oxycodone as the cause of mother’s positive result for morphine because the test was negative for codeine. Thus, the source of the positive result most likely was morphine or heroin.
The juvenile court sustained the petition as amended with respect to mother and as plead with respect to father. The juvenile court noted mother and father had been given “every chance to straighten out, to get clean and to raise their child.” Upon termination of jurisdiction in the first case, father was ordered not to be in the home until he had resolved his drug problems. However, when the family again came to the attention of the Department, father was living in the home. The juvenile court noted the Department had held two team decision making meetings since the filing of the most recent petition but the parents could not comply with the safety plan.
As sustained, the petition alleged mother has a 14-year history of substance abuse and is a current drug abuser which renders mother incapable of providing the child regular care and supervision. Mother had recent positive toxicology screens for marijuana and for morphine. The child is a prior dependent of the juvenile court due to mother’s substance abuse. The petition alleged father has a 12-year history of illicit drug use including cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana and is a current user of marijuana which renders father incapable of providing regular care and supervision. On February 22, 2011, father had a positive toxicology screen for marijuana. Father has a criminal history that includes convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. The child is a prior dependent of the juvenile court due to father’s substance abuse.
The juvenile court declared B.G. a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b), and found, pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c), there was a substantial danger to the child’s well-being if she were returned home. The juvenile court found the Department had made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for removal. The juvenile court stated B.G. could not be placed with mother because she had disregarded the prior order that father not be in the home.
The juvenile court indicated the recommendation was for mother to “do a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, random weekly drug-testing and a 12-step program with a card and a sponsor....” Mother asked to do only a 12-step program, rather than a drug program, because she was employed. The juvenile court indicated it did not want to overburden mother and agreed to permit mother to attend a daily 12-step program, submit to random drug tests and participate in counseling to address substance abuse issues. If mother tested positive, she would be required to do a full drug program. The juvenile court also ordered both parents to attend developmentally appropriate parenting classes and individual counseling to address case issues.
DISCUSSION
1. The evidence supports the jurisdictional findings as to mother.
a. The unchallenged jurisdictional findings as to father support jurisdiction notwithstanding mother’s appeal.
Initially, we note mother has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional findings as to father. Uncontested allegations against one parent are sufficient for jurisdiction. (In re X.S. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161; In re Alexis H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 11, 16; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 482; In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397 [“a jurisdictional finding good against one parent is good against both”].) Thus, even if mother’s arguments had merit, B.G. nonetheless would remain a dependent child. However, even if the sustained allegations as to father are ignored, the evidence supported the jurisdictional findings as to mother.
b. Relevant principles.
A juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355, subd. (a).) We review a juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. In so doing, we view “the record in the light most favorable to the challenged order, resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of that order, and giving the evidence reasonable inferences.” (In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450-451; In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393; In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 564.)
As relevant here, section 300, subdivision (b) provides for dependency jurisdiction when “[t]he 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 or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child....”
A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires: “ ‘(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) “serious physical harm or illness” to the [child], or a “substantial risk” of such harm or illness.’ [Citation.]” (In re Savannah M., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.)
c. Mother’s arguments.
Mother contends her admission that she experimented with drugs in high school did not constitute proof of a 14-year history of drug abuse, noting B.G. would not have been returned to mother’s care in 2010 if mother had an ongoing drug abuseproblem. Regarding the allegation mother is a current drug user, mother claims the record shows only that she used prescribed Vicodin to control her pain related to gall bladder surgery, she occasionally smoked marijuana, and on one occasion used father’s Oxycodone to control pain.
Mother argues there is no causal connection between her occasional use of marijuana to any demonstrated risk to B.G. (See Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1327-1328 [mother’s use of marijuana insufficient to prevent return of her children absent evidence her judgment was impaired].) Mother further asserts there was no evidence mother’s use of father’s medication on one occasion endangered B.G. (See Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 495, 505-506 [a single positive test result caused by mother’s ingestion of one of her daughter’s prescribed Tylenol tablets, not realizing it contained codeine, was insufficient to support a finding of detriment to the child, where the mother otherwise tested negative and there was no evidence of child endangerment].)
Mother claims her situation is similar to the situation of the mother in In re James R. (2009)176 Cal.App.4th 129, who was hospitalized after a reaction to mixing alcohol and pain medication. In re James R. found the single incident insufficient for dependency jurisdiction because there was no evidence of any neglect or harm to the children, even though mother had a “history of mental problems” and continued to drink alcohol. (Id. at pp. 136-137.)
Finally, mother contends there was no evidence B.G. was at substantial risk of harm in mother’s care. Mother notes she was never described as being under the influence of drugs, her occasional recreational use of marijuana is no different than social drinking, and there is no evidence mother abused drugs, rather than merely using drugs as needed to control pain. Mother claims the evidence showed B.G. was healthy, well cared for and bonded to her parents and the home was clean. The only time the child was not so described occurred when she was detained. However, on that occasion, B.G. was ill. In any event, this isolated incident does not permit the exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, jurisdiction was unwarranted.
d. Substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings.
Mother’s arguments view the current case in isolation and ignore that her drug abuse and domestic violence committed by father in the presence of B.G. and while under the influence of prescription drugs and alcohol previously caused B.G. to be removed from mother’s care from October of 2009 through June of 2010. Although mother attended a drug treatment program and reunified with B.G., father did not. As a result, when jurisdiction terminated, father was granted only monitored visitation. Although mother’s prior social worker, Bolden, admonished mother with respect to the order, mother permitted father to live in the home and have unmonitored contact with B.G. even though father failed to address his substance abuse in the prior dependency case.
Although mother refers to her marijuana use as occasional and recreational, one month after jurisdiction terminated in January of 2011, a hot line referral indicated mother and father smoked marijuana in the home on a daily basis. When interviewed, mother admitted she smoked marijuana with friends while B.G. was asleep in the bedroom with the door closed. Thus, mother admitted being under the influence of marijuana while she was providing care for B.G. Additionally, mother gave conflicting accounts of the number of times she smoked marijuana after B.G. was returned to her, telling Mandarino three times but telling Ramos once.
With respect to mother’s claim B.G. was never shown to be at risk of harm in mother’s care, mother tested for high levels of marijuana in February of 2011. In April of 2011, mother failed to appear for scheduled drug tests and gave conflicting excuses for why she could not drug test on April 29, 2011. Mother eventually provided a sample that could not be tested, possibly because mother drank too much water prior to the test, and another test in which mother tested positive for morphine. Although mother attributed this positive test result to father’s Oxycodone, the lab advised Eddings the positive result was not attributable to Oxycodone as Oxycodone contains codeine and mother tested negative for codeine.
Mother’s inability to maintain sobriety, despite having previously lost custody of B.G., indicated mother’s problems with substance abuse were not casual or occasional and that mother’s drug abuse placed B.G. at risk of harm in her care.
Regarding mother’s alleged 14-year history of drug abuse, mother admitted she experimented with drugs in high school. Given that she was 31 years of age at the time of disposition, the juvenile court properly could conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that mother had a longstanding problem with drug abuse that dated to her high school days. The fact B.G. was returned to mother after mother completed a drug treatment program during the prior dependency case does not require a contrary conclusion.
Although mother notes B.G. was well groomed and in good health on most occasions, when the child was detained she was dirty and her hair was matted. Further, father was present in the home and he appeared to be under the influence to social worker Grant who observed father run to the bathroom and vomit. Based thereon, the juvenile court properly could conclude the home situation had deteriorated, mother’s inability to maintain sobriety placed B.G. at risk of harm and detention was necessary to ensure B.G.’s safety.
The cases cited by mother are distinguishable. In Jennifer A., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th 1322, dependency was not based on mother’s drug use. During the pendency of the case, it was disclosed that mother was an occasional marijuana user. However, there had been no claim that mother’s marijuana use impaired her parenting abilities in any significant way. Thus, Jennifer A. reversed the juvenile court’s decision the child could not be returned safely to the mother. In Rita L., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th 495, the juvenile court found mother had performed in an exemplary manner and, but for her ingestion of a single prescription pain killer to combat a headache, her child would have returned to her. (Rita L. v. Superior Court, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 506.) Here, dependency was based on mother’s drug abuse, mother had a prior dependency case that was based, in part, on mother’s drug abuse, and mother continued to test positive for drugs after a non-detained petition was filed. Further, unlike the situation in In re James R., supra, 176 Cal.App.4th 129, B.G. was not declared a dependent child based on a single incident of mother mixing alcohol and pain medication or in the absence of any evidence of risk.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings.
2. Removal of B.G. from mother’s care.
a. General principles.
As relevant here, section 361, subdivision (c) prohibits the juvenile court from removing a child from the custody of his or her parent unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, “[t]here is or 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 there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s... physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).)
“A removal order is proper if it is based on proof of parental inability to provide proper care for the minor and proof of a potential detriment to the minor if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child. [Citations.]” (In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1136, disapproved on another point in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could make the necessary findings. (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 694-695.)
b. Mother’s arguments.
Mother contends the juvenile court erroneously removed B.G. from mother’s care without clear and convincing evidence the child was at risk of harm. Mother additionally claims there were less drastic alternatives to removal such as ordering father to move from the home with unannounced visits by the social worker. (See In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 171-172, superseded by statute on another point as noted in In re Lucero L. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1227, 1239-1242.)
Mother notes Eddings testified she had no concerns for B.G.’s safety if father were not in the home. Although Ramos testified B.G. could not be returned to mother even if father moved from the home, mother claims this testimony rested on the erroneous belief mother violated the prior order for monitored visitation for father. However, Bolden conceded there was no proof father lived with mother during the prior dependency case. (Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1751 [unsubstantiated opinion of detriment does not constitute substantial evidence].)
Mother further claims the juvenile court improperly presumed mother would not follow an order excluding father from the home because mother previously had failed to comply with a similar order. Mother argues the juvenile court’s subjective opinion premised on speculation does not constitute substantial evidence. (In re Rebekah R. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1638, 1656; In re Steven W. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 10, 22.)
Additionally, although the juvenile court stated its belief father was not to be in the home until he resolved his drug problems, there is no record of such an order and the record in this case does not contain the orders made upon termination of the prior dependency case. Thus, the Department presented no evidence that indicated mother had disobeyed court orders during the prior dependency case or the instant case.
Mother also claims the Department should be estopped from asserting father’s presence in the home as a ground for removal because the Department knew father was living in the home from the start of this case. (See Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 181.) The juvenile court also was aware of father’s presence in the home in that B.G. was released to the home of her parents at the detention hearingon March 24, 2011. Based thereon, mother claims the Department and the juvenile court implicitly ratified mother’s decision to allow father to live in the home.
Mother further claims the Department made no showing that, during the time father was in the home, B.G. was neglected.
c. The evidence supports the juvenile court’s removal order.
The juvenile court’s decision to remove B.G. from mother’s care was based on the failure of the parents to maintain sobriety. Given mother’s use of marijuana and morphine shortly after jurisdiction terminated in her prior dependency case, and in light of mother’s history of substance abuse and her conduct in allowing father to have unmonitored contact with B.G. in violation of the juvenile court’s prior order, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude B.G. was at substantial risk of harm in mother’s care and there were no reasonable means by which the child’s well being could be protected absent removal.
Mother claims that ordering father to move from the home was available as a less drastic alternative. However, the juvenile court properly could reject this alternative because mother failed to abide by the termination order in the previous case which granted father only monitored visitation. Mother argues the juvenile court erroneously found father lived with mother during the prior dependency case, noting Bolden’s inability to prove that had occurred. However, the juvenile court did not base its findings on mother’s conduct during the prior case. Rather, the juvenile court stated, “When the Department [went] out to investigate, the father was living in the home. And the mother now wants me to trust her that the father will move out and she won’t take him back in.” Thus, the juvenile court relied on mother’s conduct after termination of jurisdiction in the prior case to conclude mother had allowed father to have unauthorized access to B.G. The juvenile court reasonably could conclude mother would again violate an order granting father only monitored visitation.
Mother claims she cannot be found to have violated the order terminating jurisdiction in the prior case because that order is not part of the record in the current case. However, the social report dated May 5, 2011, which was received into evidence for the adjudication, contained the provisions of the order terminating jurisdiction which awarded custody to mother and granted father monitored visitation.
Mother’s assertion the Department should be e stopped from using father’s presence in the home to justify removal of the child from mother’s care is meritless. The fact the Department attempted to work with mother to avoid removal of B.G. while father remained in the home does not mean the Department cannot thereafter raise father’s presence in the home as a factor to be considered in determining whether B.G. was at risk of harm.
Finally, as the juvenile court found, the Department provided the family reasonable services designed to avoid removal of B.G. from the home. It conducted two team decision making meetings at which the parents agreed to participate in family preservation services and random drug testing. However, mother thereafter declined to participate in family preservation services and both parents not only missed drug tests but also tested positive for drugs.
Based on the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order removing B.G. from mother’s care.
3. The dispositional order was designed to facilitate reunification.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court must order services for the child and the parents designed to facilitate reunification of the family. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) “ ‘[T]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion. [Citations.]’ ” (In re Corrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.) We review the juvenile court’s dispositional orders for an abuse of discretion. (In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 652; In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.)
Mother contends the case plan was excessive for a working parent dependent on public transportation in that it addressed issues which were not relevant to this case, overburdened mother and jeopardized her employment, her housing and her ability to reunify with B.G. Specifically, mother contends there was no reason for her to attend parenting classes or to test for alcohol.
With respect to parenting classes, mother notes she successfully completed parenting classes in the prior dependency case and there was no evidence her parenting skills were lacking or that she was unable to meet B.G.’s developmental needs. (In re Jasmin C. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 177, 180-182.)
In re Jasmin C. is distinguishable. In that case, the mother was a non-offending parent. “She did not abuse her children, fail to protect them, or engage in any other inappropriate behavior. Father’s rampage was an isolated incident perpetrated by only him, during which mother immediately interceded, physically restrained and calmed him, and directed another to call the police. From the outset, the social worker recommended custody with mother, and at no time were the children removed from her home.” (In re Jasmin C., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 181.) Here, mother was an offending parent. Further, the record showed B.G. had issues with tantrums in the home, B.G. previously had been referred for play therapy to address her tantrums and she demonstrated aggressive behavior after she was placed in foster care. Given these facts, the order directing mother to participate in a developmentally appropriate parenting class was not an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion.
With respect to drug testing, the juvenile court granted mother’s request not to participate in a full drug treatment program and ordered only that she participate in a 12-step program and submit to random drug tests. The juvenile court did not order mother specifically to test for alcohol. Based on mother’s positive test results for morphine and marijuana, as well as the prior dependency case, which was based in part on an allegation mother was a current user of marijuana and alcohol, an order requiring mother to submit to random testing for drugs, including alcohol, was not an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., ALDRICH, J.
B.G. was detained on October 10, 2009, family reunification services were provided through July 22, 2010, with family preservation services from that date until January 24, 2011, when jurisdiction terminated. The order terminating jurisdiction released B.G. to mother and granted father monitored visitation.