Opinion
E081347
03-04-2024
In re Dylan M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. K.M., Defendant and Appellant. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. DPRI2300080 Mona Nemat, Judge. Affirmed.
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ J.
K.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's dispositional findings and orders concerning her three minor children. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jurisdictional findings against her and S.U. (father; collectively, parents) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (§ 300(b)(1)) (unlabeled statutory references are to this code). Mother also contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a substance abuse assessment and drug testing as part of her case plan. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. Family Background
Parents have been in a romantic relationship since around 2008 and have three children together: Dylan M. (born in 2009), Colin M. (born in 2011), and Selena M. (born in 2017) (collectively, the children). The children have three older half-siblings, who are father's children with Jennifer U.: Landon U. (born in 2005), Jaden U. (born in 2006), and E.U. (female, born in 2003 or 2004) (collectively, the half siblings). In late 2022, Jaden lived with parents and the children, and the family lived with paternal grandmother.
The record does not contain E.U.'s birthdate. In December 2020, she was 16 years old.
Father has a dependency history involving the half siblings in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties, but the details of those proceedings are not clear from the record. In January 2005, the juvenile court in Orange County sustained a section 300 petition against father as to E.U. Father's reunification services were terminated at the six-month review hearing. In June 2005, the juvenile court in Los Angeles County sustained a section 300 petition against father as to Landon. At the six-month review hearing, the court ordered Landon placed with Jennifer with family maintenance services and ordered Jennifer not to have any contact with father if Landon was with her. In April 2021, the juvenile court in Riverside County adjudged the half siblings dependents and ordered reunification services for Jennifer and father. In July 2022, the court terminated reunification services for father and Jennifer and ordered legal guardianship as the permanent plan for Landon with supervised visits with his parents. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the Department) recommended that father be granted sole legal and physical custody of Jaden.
It is not clear from the record whether father received reunification services. The Department recommended that he be bypassed.
B. Present Investigation
In October 2022, the Department received a referral alleging that parents were neglecting the children. The initial referral included allegations made by 13-year-old Dylan (either to the Department or to someone who contacted the Department). Dylan called mother "a 'bitch.'" He said that he acted disrespectfully toward mother because she used drugs. According to Dylan, mother smoked some substance other than marijuana from a glass pipe with a ball on the end. Dylan once found a glass pipe in the pocket of father's robe, and Dylan smashed the pipe after finding it. The report stated that it was "unknown" when mother last smoked drugs and whether she did so in the children's presence at home, but Dylan was "adamant" that mother was "smoking," though father was not.
A social worker attempted to interview Dylan at his middle school one week after the referral was made, but Dylan was absent. The social worker obtained a copy of Dylan's attendance record. Dylan had 86 unexcused absences between August and midOctober 2022. Dylan also was absent 10 days later, when the social worker again visited the school.
The social worker spoke with one of Dylan's teachers, who works with students with behavioral issues. The teacher described Dylan as well-behaved and respectful in class but noted that he "struggle[d]" in his relationship with mother. The teacher had spoken with mother about Dylan's absences, and mother said that she had difficulty waking him up. Dylan had an individualized education plan (IEP).
In mid-October 2022, a social worker interviewed Colin, who was then 10 years old. The social worker described Colin as "happy." Colin reported that the only person who used drugs at home was Landon, who smoked and sold what Colin believed to be cigarettes or marijuana, but Landon did not do drugs in front of Colin or his siblings. According to Colin, no one else in the house used drugs or alcohol. Colin had not seen parents use any substances and also did not observe "any behavior changes that would indicate they would be under the influence of drugs and alcohol."
Colin described Dylan's relationship with mother as "not good." Dylan did not like to go to school, even when parents told him to go. Colin described Dylan as "mean" and said that Dylan bullied Colin and parents. Dylan would "yell and fight his mother," call mother "a 'bitch,'" and "throw any object he [could] find at" mother. Colin nonetheless reported feeling safe in the home.
Social workers visited the family home unannounced in late October 2022 and interviewed parents and Dylan. They did not speak with Selena, who was almost five years old, but Selena answered the door and called for mother. Mother was employed as an in-home caregiver. With respect to the allegations in the referral, mother confirmed that she had previously been arrested or convicted for possession of methamphetamine, but she denied any recent drug use. Mother claimed to have been clean and sober for 12 years. Mother had not seen father under the influence. Mother confirmed that Dylan found a glass pipe four months ago, but she did not see it because he broke it.
Mother reported that Dylan knew about "her past history" and used that information to attempt to manipulate mother "into getting what he wants." Mother described an incident in which she refused to buy Dylan fast food, so he threw a rock at her car's windshield, causing it to crack. Dylan "called her a 'bitch' multiple times and [had] thrown objects in her direction." Dylan had an IEP at school because of his behavior issues, but he was not in therapy and did not have a mental health diagnosis.
Father explained that he did not work, because he was suffering from the longterm effects of having suffered a stroke in 2015 while in prison. Father admitted having previously used methamphetamine but said that he had been sober since the stroke. Father confirmed that Dylan once told father that he found a glass pipe, but Dylan disposed of the pipe beforehand and did not show it to father. Father wished that Dylan had shown it to him, so father could have shown the pipe to mother. The social worker asked father who owned the pipe, and he pointed at mother. Father stated that he believed that mother was still using methamphetamine. But father did not have any evidence to support the claim and had "not observed [mother] under the influence of methamphetamine."
Dylan reported that Landon was the only person in the household who smoked marijuana. Dylan also "denied anyone in the home uses drugs or alcohol." Dylan reported that he twice found a glass pipe, sometime when he was 11 or 12 years old. (Dylan turned 13 in August 2022.) Dylan said that he found a pipe in the pocket of father's robe when he was drying his hands on the robe. Dylan described the pipe as a "clear glass skinny pipe with a ball at the end and tiny hole at the top" with "black in the middle." Dylan showed the pipe to Jaden and paternal grandmother. Dylan did not describe the other incident in which he found a pipe, but he said that he broke the pipe the second time. Despite having denied that anyone in the household (other than Landon) used drugs, Dylan also said that he believed that mother was "using but denie[d] witnessing her smoke or appear under the influence." The social worker asked Dylan why he believed that mother "smokes despite no indication she does," and Dylan responded, "'I don't know. I just know she does.'"
In light of the allegations concerning the glass pipe, a social worker asked parents to submit to an on-demand saliva drug test. Mother became frustrated, denied using methamphetamine or any other substance, and refused to take the test. Mother believed that Dylan was "only doing this to get a rise out of her and [to] make her life difficult." Father agreed to take an on-demand urine test the next day. The social worker submitted referrals for on-demand urine drug tests for both parents and informed parents of the referrals by voicemail. Parents did not respond and did not take the tests.
In December 2022, the social worker made an unannounced follow-up visit at the family's residence, where parents and the children were present, though mother was asleep. Dylan reported that he did not want to go to school, because of his father's condition. The social worker asked father to submit to an on-demand saliva drug test, but he refused, claiming that such tests are not accurate. He agreed to take an on-demand urine drug test. The social worker submitted a referral for on-demand urine drug tests for both parents the next day and was later informed that parents did not show up to take the tests.
In early January 2023, mother texted the social worker that she "would also like to test" and would take father to test. The social worker again submitted on-demand drug test referrals for both parents, and both parents tested on January 4. The results were negative for all substances.
Two weeks later, the Department received a second referral alleging general neglect of the children by mother. The reporting party asserted that mother was "in and out of the home and doing drugs," "gone for days at a time, on a drug binge," and brought "men to the home." The reporter also stated that Dylan had not attended school since mid-October 2022, and Colin was the only child attending school.
A social worker interviewed the children and parents in late January 2023. The social worker interviewed Colin at school, and he appeared "happy." Colin denied that mother brought men or anyone else home or that she possessed the "physical characteristics of being under the influence." He explained that mother worked as a caregiver for the elderly and kept "odd hours." She left the house for work at 8:00 a.m. and returned at 5:00 p.m. unless she worked overtime, in which case she returned at 12:00 a.m. or 1:00 a.m.
Colin told the social worker that Dylan "'hates'" mother and would "do anything to get her in trouble." Colin reported that he had "seen Dylan throw things at [mother] in anger, as Dylan [did] not like to receive 'no' as an answer." Dylan acted with hostility only toward mother, not toward father.
During an unannounced visit at the family's residence, the social worker spoke with father, mother, and Dylan outside the house. Selena answered the door, but she wanted to play and refused to answer questions. Dylan said that mother had woken him up for school, but he yelled at her and refused to go because he is "not a morning person" and does not like school. Dylan denied that mother brought men to the home and also denied having ever seen "parents use" or having ever observed them "to be under the influence of controlled substances."
Father denied that mother brought other men home. Father denied that he or mother "use[d] any substance in the home" and stated that "the allegations are false." The social worker asked father to submit to an on-demand saliva drug test, and he refused.
Parents informed the social worker that mother was in the process of enrolling Dylan in home school, because Dylan had behavioral outbursts when parents tried to get him to go to school. Mother had tried to get Dylan to go to school several times, but he ran away. Father believed that Dylan felt obligated to care for father.
Father reported that "Dylan does not like his mother and will do and say anything to anyone to get her in trouble." Father said that Dylan had "thrown water bottles." Father described the incident in which Dylan had thrown a rock at mother's car. Father suspected that Dylan was the reason that mother's car had flat tires frequently, but father had no evidence that Dylan was responsible.
Mother was "frustrated" and denied the new allegations. Mother said that she had not brought other men to the house, and she denied "using any substances." Mother explained that she is the family's sole financial provider and works late. Mother refused to take an on-demand saliva drug test, because she had drug-tested earlier that month. Mother believed it was "ridiculous" that she was being asked to test again and said she would not drug test unless ordered by the court.
The social worker also spoke with paternal grandmother in late January 2023. Paternal grandmother wanted to evict the family from her home and was frustrated that parents did not pay rent, but paternal grandmother did not want her grandchildren to be homeless. Paternal grandmother criticized parents as being too "laid back" and confirmed that Dylan had not attended school for months.
Paternal grandmother believed that father allowed mother to use drugs in the home. Paternal grandmother reported that Dylan had twice shown her a glass pipe with a ball on the end, which she described as a "drug pipe." She showed father the pipe sometime in July or September 2022, and in response Father shrugged and said, "'I don't know.'" Paternal grandmother assumed that father was "covering for" mother. Paternal grandmother reported that the children had told her that father had asked "mother to move out due to suspicion of drug use." Paternal grandmother could not provide any firsthand information about whether parents used drugs, because she stayed in her bedroom when at home in order to avoid interacting with parents. Paternal grandmother wished that parents would participate in ongoing on-demand drug tests.
In early February 2023, a social worker contacted Dylan's teacher and asked her about parents' involvement with Dylan's schooling. The teacher confirmed that Dylan had an IEP and reported that the school had offered the family wraparound services. The teacher had attempted to contact mother about available resources and to get mother to sign the IEP so the school could "move forward with services," but mother did not sign and was not responsive. School administrators also were not successful in getting parents to sign paperwork concerning wraparound services. A school attendance review board hearing was held in mid-February. Dylan attempted to run away on the way to the hearing, but father found him a few hours later. Dylan attended school a few days after the hearing but was absent one week later when the social worker attempted to contact him there.
C. The Allegations and Parents' Criminal Histories
In March 2023, the Department filed a dependency petition as to all three children, with jurisdictional allegations against father and mother under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A) (§ 300(b)(1)(A)) and (b)(1)(D) (§ 300(b)(1)(D)). As later amended, the petition alleged that the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness because (1) parents failed to ensure that Dylan attended school regularly and failed to sign necessary enrollment paperwork (b-1), (2) parents demonstrated that they had a limited ability to parent Dylan "due to [Dylan's] increasing negative behaviors" (b-1), (3) both parents have "a history of abusing controlled substances" (b-2 &b-3), (4) both parents have an "extensive criminal history," including convictions for "drug related charges" (b-2 &b-3), and (5) father has a dependency history with Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties with "substantiated allegations of neglect as to" the half siblings (b-4).
In 2001 and 2002, mother pled guilty to misdemeanor and felony drug-related offenses. In 2004, a drug-related felony or misdemeanor charge against mother was dismissed under former Health and Safety Code section 1210.1, which then allowed dismissal of certain drug charges for qualifying persons upon "successful completion of drug treatment." (Former Health &Saf. Code, § 1210.1, subds. (a), (d).) In 1999 and 2006, father pled guilty to numerous felony and misdemeanor drug-related offenses. In 2014, father pled guilty to numerous drug-related and firearm possession offenses. In 2015, father pled guilty to a weapon-related offense, and he pled guilty in 2016 to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.
D. The Initial Hearing
In early March 2023, the Department submitted a report for the initial hearing. The Department recommended that the children be maintained in parents' custody with supervision by the Department.
Mother notified the Department in mid-March 2023 that Dylan was receiving wraparound services through the school district. The social worker then spoke with Dylan's service provider, Gilbert Hernandez. Hernandez explained his routine of communicating nightly with Dylan about taking Dylan to school the next morning. Dylan still did not necessarily go, but he attended at least a couple of days in March.
A social worker visited the residence in March 2023, and the children and father were present. Father reported that Dylan's wraparound services were helpful but that Dylan was not at school. Dylan planned to attend school the next day. On March 20, 2023, a social worker texted parents and left them a voice message, asking them to submit to an on-demand urine drug test the following day.
The juvenile court held the initial hearing on March 24, 2023. The court made prima facie findings that the children fell within section 300(b)(1) but continued the matter. The court directed the Department to obtain up-to-date school attendance records for the children for the next hearing and to submit drug test referrals for both parents to test on March 24. The court noted that it did not have the authority to order parents to test because it had "not taken jurisdiction" but emphasized that the information would be "helpful."
The Department submitted an addendum report the following week and reported that parents did not show up for the referred drug tests on March 21 or 24, 2023. On March 28, mother texted the social worker that she wanted to take a drug test that day. The social worker submitted a drug test referral for both parents.
The court held the continued hearing on March 30, 2023. The court directed the Department to submit a referral for after-hours drug testing for both parents. The Department's counsel notified the court that parents had taken drug tests on March 20, but the samples were not tested. Counsel did not know whether parents had taken tests on March 30. Mother submitted documentary evidence including copies of text messages between mother and the social worker in which mother explained that she was working and therefore not able to test on March 24. The court continued the hearing "to follow up and review any drug testing results," given that the results were "a critical issue in this case."
The court held the continued hearing on April 10, 2023. The Department reported that parents took drug tests on March 28, and the results were negative for all substances. The court adopted the findings and recommendations made by the Department in the reports filed for the initial and continued hearings. The court found that the Department made a prima facie showing that the children came within section 300(b)(1), and the court set the jurisdiction and disposition hearings in May. The court ordered that the children could remain in parents' custody if the children attended school every day. The court directed the Department to submit at least three drug test referrals for parents before the next hearing. The court expressed concern that parents were "choosing when to test as opposed to testing in a random fashion," but the court nevertheless noted that it was "not in a position to order testing."
E. Jurisdiction and Disposition
The court held the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings in mid-May 2023. In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed in late April, a social worker described the interviews that she had that month with parents, Colin, and Selena. Dylan refused to be interviewed.
Selena told the social worker that drugs were something that people smoked, and she said that no one at the house smoked, except that Jaden smoked cigarettes and Landon vaped. Colin explained that he had a social worker because parents "had a 'white crystal' which Dylan had [gone] through the parents['] drawer and found." Colin said that he saw both parents "'mash [the white crystal] up in the kitchen,'" but he "'did not see what they did with it.'" He had "never seen real crystals before" and did not know "what a glass pipe was."
Colin reported that "'Dylan and mom don't get along because he is always hitting my mom,'" which Colin said happened when mother would "'not buy [Dylan] stuff on Amazon and he [would] get mad.'" Colin confirmed that he was in mother's car when Dylan broke the windshield with a rock, but Colin did not see it happen because he "'was in the back seat messing around.'" Dylan yelled at mother and called her "'the f-word, b-word' and 's-word.'" Colin said that when Dylan confronted mother, father would yell at Dylan or tell him to stop, but Dylan did not comply. Dylan punched Colin on the arm. Father did not do anything, but mother yelled at Dylan to stop.
The social worker asked parents about the allegations in the petition. Concerning the allegation about Dylan's negative behavior, mother stated, "'He is being a teenager. We have worked past that....Dylan has not yelled in a while or thrown anything.'" Mother otherwise reported that "she sometimes experiences domestic violence with the child, Dylan." Mother explained that Dylan liked to use parents' pasts against them to divert attention away from his bad behavior. Father also believed that Dylan was "'just being a teenager'" and "'rebellious.'" As to Dylan's school attendance, parents said that Dylan was attending school and had wraparound services.
Concerning the allegations about parents' criminal histories and past substance abuse, mother said that her drug-related arrests were over 20 years ago, when she last used methamphetamine. Mother claimed to be sober and not to use drugs. Mother said that she completed a residential treatment program while on probation 20 years ago. Father confirmed that mother's drug use was "'[h]istory.'" Parents described father's criminal history, past substance abuse, and dependency history as "'old,'" apparently suggesting they were not relevant to his current parenting.
Mother said that the glass pipe found by Dylan had been used for methamphetamine and was found at least a couple of years ago in a shed when the family was moving. She believed that the pipe was an old, forgotten pipe from her previous use of methamphetamine. On another occasion, one of the half-siblings had ordered a glass pipe used for methamphetamine from "Wish." The package was addressed to E.U., and paternal grandmother opened the package and confronted the children about the pipe. Mother said that the pipe was smashed, but she was not sure by whom.
Father explained that "'a long time ago'" "'at the end of the school year'" his daughter E.U. found a glass pipe "'in the mail.'" E.U. told father that she had ordered the pipe for Landon. Father showed that pipe to paternal grandmother. On a separate occasion, Dylan found a glass pipe in the pocket of father's robe in the bathroom. Dylan did not show the pipe to father and said that he broke it. Father said: "'This [glass pipe] was found two years ago. [Mother] told me it was one that was found in the shed, but we did not know how it got in there.'" Father "'drilled'" mother about whether it was hers and "told her she could move out if it was hers."
In April 2023, a social worker submitted three referrals for parents to submit on-demand urine drug tests. Parents took all three tests and tested negative for all substances.
A social worker reported that in May 2023 Dylan started attending at-home virtual learning provided by the school district, and he continued to receive wraparound services.
In early May 2023, Colin told the social worker that everything at home was fine except that Dylan bullied and yelled at him, and Colin wanted the bullying to stop. Colin told parents about Dylan's bullying, and they yelled at Dylan to stop. Dylan threw "objects" at mother, but Colin "did not know what Dylan would throw," and Colin could not recall when Dylan had last thrown something at mother. Dylan did not listen when mother told him to stop.
The court held the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearings in mid-May 2023. No witnesses testified. The court sustained all of the allegations in the amended petition and adjudged the children dependents. The court ordered family maintenance services for mother and father. The court ordered mother to submit to a substance abuse assessment and to take on-demand drug tests "should there be cause."
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdictional Findings
Mother contends that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support any of the jurisdictional findings. We disagree as to the findings concerning mother's substance abuse and parents' inability to control Dylan's negative behavior. Those findings are sufficient to affirm the juvenile court's assertion of dependency jurisdiction over the children, and we decline to exercise our discretion to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence as to the remaining allegations. (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 273.)
Section 300(b)(1) allows the juvenile court to assert 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" "[t]he failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child" (§ 300(b)(1)(A)) or "[t]he inability of the parent or guardian to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse" (§ 300(b)(1)(D)). "In deciding whether there is a substantial risk of serious physical harm, within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (b), courts evaluate the risk that is present at the time of the adjudication hearing." (In re Roger S. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 572, 582; In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1389, abrogated on another ground in In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 628-630 (R.T.).)
The Supreme Court recently explained that "a parent's or guardian's substance-related issues may contribute to a finding that dependency jurisdiction exists for another reason, such as a 'failure or inability of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child'" under section 300(b)(1)(A). (In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520, 540, fn. 9 (N.R.).) Section 300(b)(1)(A) thus "serves to show that an exercise of dependency jurisdiction that is in some measure premised on a parent's or guardian's involvement with drugs or alcohol does not necessarily require a judicial finding of substance abuse under some defined standard." (N.R., at p. 540, fn. 9.)
"'In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them.'" (R.T., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 633.) "'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 record contains substantial evidence that the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm at the time of the jurisdiction hearing because parents "demonstrate[d] a limited ability to parent the child, [Dylan], due to the child's increasing negative behaviors." The Department argues that the allegation is supported by the evidence of Dylan's violence toward mother, which subjected Colin and Selena to a substantial risk of serious physical harm. We agree. Mother admitted that she was subjected to domestic violence by Dylan. "Exposure to domestic violence may support jurisdiction under" section 300(b)(1). (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227, 238 (L.O.); In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 134 (T.V.).) Section 300(b)(1)(A) "applies when a parent fails, or is unable, to protect the child from a substantial risk of serious physical harm because of exposure to domestic violence." (L.O., at p. 238.) As this court explained in L.O., jurisdiction is appropriate under such circumstances because "a minor can be 'put in a position of physical danger from this violence, since, for example, they could wander into the room where it was occurring and be accidentally hit by a thrown object, by a fist, arm, foot or leg ....'" (Ibid.)
The evidence supports mother's admission concerning Dylan's violence toward her. Dylan bullied mother, yelled at her, and acted violently toward her by (1) "always" hitting her, (2) throwing "any object he [could] find at" her, and (3) throwing a rock at her car's windshield hard enough that the windshield cracked. Colin saw Dylan throw objects at mother and was seated in the back seat of mother's car when Dylan threw the rock that broke the windshield. The evidence thus shows that Colin was exposed to and personally witnessed Dylan's violence toward mother. The exposure to Dylan's violence put Colin "'in a position of physical danger from this violence,'" as he inadvertently could be hit by Dylan, by an object thrown by Dylan (L.O., supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 238), or by broken glass from the windshield. Moreover, while the record does not contain evidence of Selena's whereabouts when Dylan acted violently toward mother, it is reasonable to infer that she was exposed to the same violence as Colin by living in the same household. Selena was at home every time a social worker visited, and there is no evidence that she spent significant time away from the home. The extensive evidence of Dylan's violence toward mother constituted sufficient evidence that parents failed to protect Colin and Selena "'from the substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it.'" (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 135; see also In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 944 [domestic violence witnessed by one child supported jurisdiction over siblings too].) Dylan's constant violent behavior likewise placed him "'in a position of physical danger from this violence'" (L.O., at p. 238), so parents failed to protect him from substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as well.
Moreover, the evidence shows that the risk of harm from Dylan's violence toward mother still existed at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. Dylan regularly acted violently toward mother, and parents' efforts to curtail his behavior were unsuccessful. It is reasonable to infer from the evidence that "without juvenile court intervention, the violence was likely to continue, further exposing [the children] to the risk of serious physical harm." (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 135.) We accordingly conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that parents' limited ability to parent Dylan so as to control or mitigate his "increasing negative behaviors" placed the children at substantial risk of physical harm under section 300(b)(1)(A).
Mother's arguments to the contrary about the true finding on this allegation are not persuasive. She argues that the allegation mainly concerned Dylan's poor school attendance and that the Department "attempts to put forth a new allegation of domestic violence that was not litigated, pled, or supported by the evidence." The b-1 allegation in the amended petition contained two components: Dylan's school attendance issues and parents' inability to parent Dylan with respect to his "increasing negative behaviors", and the juvenile court sustained both allegations. Dylan's "increasing negative behaviors" necessarily include Dylan's violence toward mother. Thus, contrary to mother's argument, Dylan's violence was alleged as a basis of jurisdiction as to all three children, and the true finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Mother also argues that there was no evidence that "the siblings were affected in a negative manner by Dylan's behavior." But the juvenile court does not have to wait until a child actually suffers physical injury before taking jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of section 300; a substantial risk of serious physical harm is sufficient. (T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 135; L.O., supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 239.)
Mother also challenges the evidence supporting the finding that her substance abuse history placed the children at substantial risk of physical harm, arguing that there was no evidence that mother currently uses drugs. We disagree. The record contains substantial evidence of mother's recent drug use and that it placed the children at substantial risk of physical harm because of her "failure or inability" "to supervise or protect the [children] adequately." (§ 300(b)(1)(A).) Mother admitted a history of methamphetamine use, though she claimed that her last use was over 20 years ago. But parents also admitted that Dylan recently found a glass pipe in the home, and paternal grandmother corroborated the information. There is substantial evidence that the discovery was recent-paternal grandmother said that the children found a "drug pipe" and she showed it to father in July or September 2022. Father initially said that the pipe belonged to mother, and he, paternal grandmother, and Dylan all believed that mother was using drugs. The children told paternal grandmother that father had asked mother to move out because mother was using drugs. In addition, mother repeatedly refused to be tested for drugs except on days that she selected. For all of these reasons, the record contains substantial evidence that mother currently uses drugs. Moreover, the juvenile court could reasonably infer that mother's drug use contributed to her inability to parent Dylan appropriately so as to control the violent behavior that put him and his siblings at risk of physical harm. We accordingly conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that mother's drug use placed the children at substantial risk of physical harm under section 300(b)(1)(A).
Mother's arguments to the contrary are again unpersuasive. Mother ignores the evidence of her recent drug use and the risk it posed to the children, and she instead focuses exclusively on the evidence that supports a contrary conclusion, namely, the negative drug test results, her employment status, and the fact that no one reported seeing her under the influence. The argument fails to show error under the applicable standard of review. When analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jurisdictional finding, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's finding and uphold the finding "if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed the other evidence." (In re Madison S. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 308, 318.)
Mother also argues in the alternative that at most there is evidence of drug use "without more," which is "an insufficient ground to assert jurisdiction in dependency proceedings" under section 300. (See, e.g., In re L.C. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 646, 654 [a parent's drug use "'without more, cannot' support jurisdiction"].) As we have explained, this is not a case involving drug use "without more." (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 850, disapproved on another ground in N.R., supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 560, fn. 18.) The evidence in the record supports a reasonable inference that mother's drug use contributed to her inability to parent Dylan, which placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm.
For these reasons, we affirm the true findings on the jurisdictional allegations concerning parents' inability to control Dylan and mother's drug use.
B. Disposition
Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a substance abuse assessment and on-demand drug testing as part of her case plan. We disagree.
"Section 362, subdivision (d) authorizes the juvenile court to 'direct any reasonable orders to the parents' of a dependent child as the court deems necessary and proper to ensure appropriate care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child (§ 362, subd. (d)), and the juvenile court enjoys broad discretion in crafting a dispositional case plan to this end." (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510, 522.) "We review the juvenile court's disposition case plan for an abuse of discretion." (Ibid.) The juvenile court "'cannot arbitrarily order services that are "not reasonably designed" to eliminate the behavior or circumstances that led to the court taking jurisdiction of the child.'" (In re M.C. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 137, 155 (M.C.).)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering mother to submit to a substance abuse assessment and on-demand drug testing. There is substantial evidence that mother used drugs and that she used drugs in the home. Dylan found a glass pipe in the home, which father said belonged to mother. There is also substantial evidence that mother's drug use contributed to her inability to parent Dylan appropriately, causing the children to be at substantial risk of physical harm from Dylan's violence. Under these circumstances, the substance abuse assessment and the drug testing requirement were "'"reasonably designed" to eliminate the behavior or circumstances that led to the court taking jurisdiction of the'" children. (M.C., supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 155.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by including those requirements in mother's case plan.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders are affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. CODRINGTON J.