Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. DP024595 Andre Manssourian, Judge.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
E.N., now eight months old, tested positive for narcotics when he was born. The juvenile court exercised its jurisdiction over E.N., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The court vested custody of E.N. with the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA), and approved a case plan that, in relevant part, ordered E.N.’s father, S.R. (Father), to complete a substance abuse treatment program, participate in random drug testing, and attend 12-step meetings. Father challenges the disposition order.
We affirm. Given Father’s history of substance abuse, the lack of evidence that he had ever completed a program designed to address that history, and the social worker’s testimony that E.N.’s mother, S.N. (Mother), took drugs with Father while she was pregnant, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in entering the disposition order.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
When he was born in January 2014, E.N.’s meconium tested positive for opiates. Mother had tested positive for methamphetamines, amphetamines, marijuana, opiates, and morphine at a prenatal visit in September 2013. Mother admitted smoking heroin on at least one occasion while pregnant with E.N. Father denied knowing Mother had used drugs while pregnant, although he did know about her past drug history. Father denied any illegal drug use. Mother told the social worker Father was angry with Mother because of her drug use while pregnant because “he does not drink or use any drugs.”
SSA filed a juvenile dependency petition, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court detained E.N., and he was placed with his maternal grandmother.
During an interview before the jurisdiction hearing, when asked about Father’s substance abuse history, Mother replied, “I don’t really know.” Father admitted to the social worker that he had two previous convictions, in 2006 and 2009, for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). As to the 2009 DUI, Father had completed probation and attended the Academy of Defensive Driving—“that was the alcohol class.” Father had been arrested in 2011 for possession of narcotics for sale; he claimed he was “not in possession of anything. There were no drugs on me or in a car.” Father had also been arrested for possession of controlled substance paraphernalia in 2006, but again denied possessing or using drugs.
Father stated he found out about Mother’s pregnancy “very early.” He knew Mother had drug issues, but denied she ever took drugs around him, and denied ever using drugs with her.
In the jurisdiction/disposition report, the social worker made the following observations and recommendations: “The child’s father, S[.] R[.], has a history of and/or a substance abuse problem which includes, but may not be limited to, alcohol and narcotics. The father is not currently drug testing therefore the undersigned is unable to determine the father’s current use. The father stated he is aware of the mother’s past drug use, but states he did not know she was using drugs while pregnant. The undersigned believes the parents would benefit from support by Social Services along with Parenting Education classes, a Substance Abuse Treatment program and counseling for the child’s mother to address her past episode of depression.”
At the jurisdiction hearing, Mother pled no contest, and Father submitted. The juvenile court ordered the juvenile dependency petition amended by interlineation, and, as amended, found it true by a preponderance of the evidence. The allegations found to be true included the following: “The alleged father, S[.] R[.], was aware of the mother’s past drug use, but states he did not know she was using drugs while pregnant. [¶]... [¶]... The alleged father, S[.] R[.], has a substance abuse history which may include, but may not be limited to, alcohol and narcotics. Mr. R[.] was arrested and convicted in 2006 and again in 2009 for driving under the influence. Mr. R[.] also had criminal charges of possession of controlled substance paraphernalia and possession of marijuana one ounce or less while driving, both of which were dismissed. [¶]... The alleged father, S[.] R[.], has a criminal history which includes, but may not be limited to, Vehicle Code 23152(A)—driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs; Vehicle code 23152(B)—driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of.08 percent or higher; Penal Code 148(A)(1)—obstruct/etc. public officer; Health and Safety Code 11351—possess/purchase for sale narcotic/controlled substance; Penal Code 182(A)(1)—conspiracy; commit crime and Penal Code 488—petty theft.”
At the disposition hearing, the social worker testified that Father should complete a parenting education class as well as substance abuse treatment. She believed Father should undergo substance abuse testing and treatment due to his earlier DUI convictions, his lack of any substance abuse treatment in the past, and his failure to realize that Mother was using drugs while pregnant. The social worker also testified Mother had stated that she and Father had used drugs together during Mother’s pregnancy. The social worker believed it would be appropriate to order Father to undergo drug testing for two months, but to forego a full outpatient substance abuse treatment program if his tests were clean. However, Father had declined to participate in drug testing.
Father testified he had never used drugs with Mother and had never seen her using drugs. Father had not started his parenting class because he was busy working as a golf caddy. Father had taken an 18-month class at the Academy of Defensive Driving after his 2009 DUI conviction. Father provided the following testimony regarding that class:
“Q. Okay. Now, you talked about this class. What was it called again?
“A. Academy of Defensive Driving.
“Q. Okay. Now, defensive driving means one thing, but did that class also involve alcohol counseling or anything like that?
“A. Sure, education.
“Q. Okay. Well, let’s describe—talk to me about the 18-month class. What was it like, how often did you meet, and what was going on with that class?
“A. Well, it was twice a week. One time it would be a two-hour class and you would sit in a big group and discuss what’s going on with your life and how you’re, you know, staying sober and this and that. And the other time would just be for 15 minutes, just to check in and give them your report cards and they would ask you how you’re doing and if you need to talk about anything, stuff like that.”
Father denied having a problem with drugs or alcohol, and denied having smoked marijuana since 2006 or 2007. Father testified he did not participate in drug testing in connection with E.N.’s dependency proceeding because he was “a little offended” by the insinuation that he was a drug addict, and did not “feel they have the right to accuse me of being a drug addict for no reason other than [Mother] made a couple of mistakes herself.” Father nevertheless stated he would follow any court order regarding random drug tests.
The juvenile court found that returning E.N. to Mother and Father would be detrimental to E.N., and vested custody with SSA. The court also approved a proposed case plan for Mother and Father and granted reunification services to both. Father’s case plan included the completion of a substance abuse treatment program, random drug testing, and attendance at 12 step meetings. Father timely appealed the juvenile court’s disposition order. Mother is not a party to this appeal.
Discussion
The sole issue raised by Father on appeal is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering him to complete a substance abuse treatment program, with random drug testing and participation in a 12 step program, as part of its disposition order. “The court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accord with this discretion.” (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.) We review the factual findings underlying the juvenile court’s dispositional findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. (In re A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1103.) “‘In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’” (Ibid.)
“The juvenile court may direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings under this chapter as the court deems necessary and proper to carry out this section.... That order may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program.... The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362, subd. (d).) Father argues that because Mother’s drug use was what led the juvenile court to exercise its jurisdiction over E.N., Father’s participation in a substance abuse treatment program would not lead to the elimination of the condition that brought E.N. into the dependency system.
But, as explained ante, the juvenile court found true the allegations that Father was aware of Mother’s past drug use, and he himself had a history of substance abuse. Father did not challenge the allegations of the amended petition, and did not appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings. There is a reasonable connection between the allegations of the amended petition and the portion of the disposition order requiring Father’s participation in a substance abuse treatment program.
Father argues there was no evidence of any recent drug use on his part. At the disposition hearing, the social worker testified Mother claimed she and Father had taken drugs together while Mother was pregnant with E.N. Father challenges this testimony because it is unsupported by any other evidence. Father’s denial of taking drugs with Mother must be ignored in our review of the record, as the juvenile court found Father was not credible, and did not believe any of his testimony. Determining the credibility of witnesses is always the province of the trial court. (Small v. Fitz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 182; Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141.)
Father contends the social worker’s testimony contradicts her written reports because Mother’s statement to the social worker about drug use with Father was not included in the written reports. The absence of the statement in the report does not mean the statement was never made. While the statement was relevant to the dependency proceedings, we reject the proposition that nothing except specific words in SSA’s written reports may be relied on by the juvenile court in determining what is in a dependent child’s best interests. In any event, Mother’s statements to the social worker about Father’s drug use, as reported in SSA’s written reports, do not, as Father contends, establish he did not drink or take drugs. Mother initially said Father was angry that E.N.’s stool sample would be positive for drugs because Father “does not drink or use any drugs.” When she was later asked about the allegation in the dependency petition that Father had a history of substance abuse problems, Mother replied, “I don’t really know.”
The evidence did not show Father completed any type of substance abuse treatment program after his DUI convictions. Father’s testimony regarding the defensive driving program was vague. Father’s ability to discern Mother’s drug use and actively help her address her substance abuse problem would unquestionably help lead to the elimination of the condition that brought E.N. into the dependency system. Father’s failure to do so justified SSA’s recommendation that he complete some type of substance abuse treatment program himself.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Father to complete a substance abuse treatment program, randomly drug test, and attend 12-step meetings.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.