Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK73994. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Juvenile Court Referee.
Karin S. Collins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST, J
Appellant O.M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. He contends that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). He also argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him to participate in anger management and individual counseling as well as requiring him to verify a sober lifestyle.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This family consists of father, A.C. (mother), and S.M. (the minor, born Aug. 2004).
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
Detention Report and Hearing
On August 5, 2008, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department executed a search warrant at mother’s home, where the minor lived, as a result of an investigation that revealed narcotic sales by J.C., a friend of mother and father. During the search, four methamphetamine pipes were found in the kitchen and marijuana residue and roaches were found in the room that mother and the minor shared. Although mother denied knowing about the methamphetamine pipes, she admitted that the marijuana residue belonged to her as she occasionally smoked marijuana.
The Sheriff’s Department notified the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that an independent investigation into child endangerment concerns should be conducted.
Thus, on August 11, 2008, a DCFS social worker (CSW) spoke with mother. She identified father as the minor’s father. She denied knowing his whereabouts. She stated that father rarely saw the minor and did not provide for her. She denied that father had a drug history, but she indicated that he had a criminal history and had been incarcerated. She also revealed that she and father had a long history of domestic violence. Although she was not forthright with the details, mother did admit that she and father participated in domestic violence classes that were ordered by the criminal court.
Mother later stated that she had not seen father since December 2007. She did not know where he lived and had not been in a relationship with him since he was incarcerated, which was some time last year. According to mother, she and father were in a relationship together for six years. She admitted that they raised their voices in front of the minor. She further disclosed that she had hit father and father had hit her, but denied that they ever hit each other in front of their daughter. Mother stated that she threw objects toward father, but denied that she and father had used objects on each other during the fights. Mother explained that there had been restraining orders in place, but “they [were] lifted.”
The CSW had mother take an “on-demand” drug test. Because mother tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, the minor was placed into protective custody.
The CSW also spoke with the minor’s maternal grandmother, who stated that she would try to obtain information regarding father’s whereabouts.
The CSW then contacted the minor’s paternal grandmother. She denied that father lived in her home and stated that she did not know where he lived. However, because father went to her house often, she would provide him with the CSW’s contact information. She denied that father had a criminal or drug history. But, after the CSW asked the paternal grandmother about father’s arrest for domestic violence, she admitted that father had been arrested. She confirmed that father had participated in classes.
She later admitted that father did reside in her home.
On August 12, 2008, the CSW spoke with father. While he knew that mother had used drugs in the past, he did not know that she was currently using drugs. When he asked her, she always denied using drugs.
Regarding mother’s statement that father failed to provide support for the minor, father explained that mother was receiving welfare, and, therefore, his wages were being garnished. Moreover, about10 days prior to his conversation with the CSW, mother had called him because “things were going bad”; she was having difficulties caring for the minor. Father told mother that he would care for the minor if she could not do so; he also advised CSW that the minor’s paternal and maternal grandmothers offered to care for the minor.
Although father was concerned about the minor, he did not talk to mother much.
Father denied that he had a drug history; he only smoked cigarettes.
Regarding father’s criminal history, father stated that he had been “busted” for domestic violence with mother. According to father, he was also arrested for assault on a police officer. He claimed that the police officer hit him first, and he “fought it for eight months,” but he “finally gave in.” He also had a felony conviction for grand theft. His criminal record revealed the following: (1) a July 30, 2002, misdemeanor conviction for obstruction of a public officer; (2) a May 30, 2002, misdemeanor conviction for sex with a minor and battery of a spouse; (3) an August 19, 2002, misdemeanor conviction for battery of a spouse; and (4) a May 4, 2005, felony conviction for grand theft from a person. He was currently on parole.
As for the history of domestic violence, father stated that mother was controlling, would quickly become upset, and would throw objects. He reported: “[I]t just gets out of control.” He claimed that mother was the type of person who would call law enforcement and “tell things that [he] didn’t do.” For example, once, when father was on probation, he was concerned about the minor. Mother became upset and threatened to call the police, even though she was the one who was throwing things. Father stayed because he was concerned about the minor. When the police arrived, they arrested mother, even though she was the one who had reported that father was physically abusing her. While mother had no bruises, father did.
Although the minor was present during the incidents of domestic violence, she was in a different room and was “really small.” Nevertheless, father admitted that the domestic violence had affected his daughter, because he was incarcerated and not “around.”
Father advised the CSW that he lived in the paternal grandmother’s home. Sometimes, he stayed with a friend.
The CSW also interviewed the minor’s maternal aunt. She reported that she was aware that father had hit mother on several occasions. She described one incident that occurred three years prior, when father hit mother across the face and mother fell to the ground. The police came.
The minor’s maternal uncle also confirmed instances of domestic violence between the parents. He relayed one incident, when the parents were hitting each other and the minor was watching. According to the maternal uncle, during the dispute, father was mostly hitting mother.
Attached to the detention report was a January 24, 2007, Monrovia Police Department Officer Report. According to the report, Officer Ortlund reported that on January 23, 2007, he was dispatched to a domestic violence call. The parents had been in a dating relationship for many years and had a two-year-old daughter together. Mother told the officer that father was living with her in a small back room behind the main house. There was a documented history of domestic violence in the relationship; both parents had prior convictions. Mother and father had had restraining orders in place against each other in the past. There currently was a restraining order by father against mother. Furthermore, father was currently on parole, and one of the conditions of his parole was to stay away from mother.
Mother told Officer Ortlund that on January 23, 2007, when she returned home at around 10:20 a.m. from shopping, she found father mad at her. Father asked where she had been, and she replied that she had run errands. Mother believed that father was upset that she had left him alone with the minor and that she was taking advantage of him by doing that. During the conversation, mother was sitting on the floor folding laundry. Mother got up from the floor and yelled at father. She asked him why he could not allow her to do her errands without the baby. Mother said that she wanted to leave the room because, in the past, father had slammed the door on her and would not let her out. When mother moved towards the door, father struck her one time with his right hand, hitting her on the lip. Mother could not tell if father’s hand was open or closed.
Mother then stated that after father struck her, he put his hands on his head and apologized. She picked up the minor in the other room and went to the rear house where the maternal grandmother lived. Mother made arrangements with the maternal grandmother to leave. She then returned to the room where father was and told him that she and the minor were leaving with the maternal grandmother. At first, father appeared fine, but, after a few minutes, he picked up the minor and told mother that he would not allow her to take the minor. Mother did not try to stop him because she thought he would hurt the minor. Mother went to do errands with the maternal grandmother and then went to the police station at around 3:00 p.m. to make a report.
Father’s version of the incident was different. According to father, he had been staying with mother for two months, including the night of January 22, 2007. He woke up at approximately 8:10 a.m. and realized that mother was gone. When he discovered that mother had left him with the minor, he was upset because mother had not told him she was leaving. Father felt that mother was inconsiderate. When mother returned home, he was at the paternal grandmother’s home in Duarte. He then went back to mother’s home and told her that he did not like that she had left him home with the minor. While father was speaking to mother, she was on the floor folding laundry. During that time, the minor walked into the room and stood behind mother. When mother suddenly got up and began to turn toward father, he thought that she did not see the minor in her way; thus, he reached out with both hands to keep mother from walking over the minor. While doing so, he unintentionally struck mother. Mother became upset and left, without taking the minor. Father did not observe any injury to mother.
Father claimed that he did not have a restraining order against mother, even though the police found that one was in place.
The officer observed that mother had a cut with clotted blood and swelling on the right portion of her lip. Further, father’s parole agent concluded that father was in violation of a condition of his parole. Thus, the officer arrested father for willful infliction of corporal injury on mother.
Also attached to the detention report was the Monrovia Police Department Officer Report about the April 11, 2006, spousal abuse incident. Officer Thompson reported that father had said that he was arguing with mother. Mother started hitting father on the head and upper body with her fist. Father placed his fist up to his head in an effort to protect himself. Mother hit father about five times. She also bit father on his left forearm, causing pain and leaving a visible bruise. Father then walked outside the home to get away from mother and to call the police. The officer observed a red bruise on father, from a bite mark he received from mother; father complained of pain in that area.
Mother denied that father had hit her. She admitted that she had hit and bit father because she was mad at him. Mother was arrested for spousal abuse.
Also included in the detention report, was an October 9, 2004, Monrovia Police Department Officer Report. Officer Karch reported that on October 9, 2004, he was dispatched to a possible domestic violence incident. When he arrived, he saw mother on a pay telephone holding the minor, who was an infant at the time. Mother told the officer that father came home at approximately 1:30 a.m. He was upset and, while mother was sleeping, slapped her on the left side of her face with an open hand. Mother got out of bed and threw a candle holder and candle at him. She then picked up the minor and left the house.
Father described the incident differently. He stated that he got home late on October 9, 2004. He opened the front door and a child’s chair was pressed up against the door; the chair fell over. According to father, mother put the chair against the front door to alert her if anyone walked into the house. The falling chair woke mother, who threw a candle holder with a candle in it at him. Both objects struck father in the back of his head, then bounced off his head and hit his left thumb, cutting the thumb open.
Father did not know why mother threw a candle at him, but he suspected that it was because he came home very late. As he was trying to leave the home, mother continuously swore and yelled at him. Father was not sure what mother was saying because she was too loud and he was trying to leave. He was going to sleep in his vehicle when mother walked past him with the minor. Because he feared for the minor’s safety, father followed them. He asked mother to get out of the street or to go home, but she continued to walk in the street with the minor. Thus, he continued to follow them, and mother called the police.
The officer did not observe any injuries on mother, but saw a lump and swelling on the left portion of father’s head and a laceration on his left thumb. Mother was arrested for domestic violence.
Finally, in the statement of parentage, father declared that he participated in medical appointments and daycare with the minor. He also provided food, toys, money, and clothes for his daughter.
At the August 14, 2008, detention hearing, the juvenile court detained the minor. The matter was set for a pretrial resolution conference.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Report and Hearing
In its September 16, 2008, jurisdiction/disposition report, the CSW reported that father had participated in a 52-week domestic violence batterer’s program between October 23, 2002, and December 16, 2003.
Regarding the incident with the candle holder, father admitted that the minor was in the home when the incident occurred. Father informed the CSW that he had arrived home very late and mother was upset. When father entered the house, mother began throwing objects at him. Then, mother hit him with a candle holder. He went outside to let mother “cool off.” Instead, mother left the house with the minor. Father followed them because it was late at night and cold. Mother was walking in the middle of the street and father walked along the sidewalk, asking mother to give the minor to him or to go home. Mother then went to a pay telephone, called the police, and started yelling as if father was hurting her. When the police arrived, they arrested mother because father’s head was bleeding.
Father explained that in a separate incident, mother’s lip was hurt, but it was an accident. Father could not recall how mother’s mouth began bleeding, but he did state that he did not strike mother with his hand.
Father informed the CSW that he never punched mother, but he may have slapped her. He knew mother had slapped him. He disclosed that mother bit him on the face, so he pushed her.
He also advised the CSW that he should have ended the relationship with mother. Father knew mother used to smoke marijuana a long time ago. He knew that J.C. was living in mother’s home, but he did not know about the drugs. Father said that he saw little crowds of people smoking cigarettes near mother’s home, and he knew that they were not to be trusted.
Father stated that he was unaware of mother’s drug use until the juvenile court’s involvement. According to father, mother had told him that the maternal grandmother told mother’s school that mother used marijuana. But, father never witnessed mother use marijuana or methamphetamines. In the past, mother had used marijuana, but she told people that father was the reason she stopped using drugs. Father stated that one time mother called him and told him to take care of the minor if anything happened to her. He asked mother if she was “doing anything,” and she replied that she was not.
Father informed the CSW that he was released from prison in November 2007, although he had not begun to start seeing the minor until June 2008. Mother had called father to ask whether he wanted to see the minor. Mother also informed father that she did not have money to buy food for the minor. Thus, father began seeing his daughter every other day.
Mother reported that her relationship with father had always been turbulent. Although she contributed to their problems, father was the aggressor in the relationship. According to mother, she and father did not fight around the minor; they only argued. The times when there were physical altercations, the minor was in another room or the parents were outside. The only time the minor witnessed any domestic violence was when mother was arrested for the first time. According to mother, she was arrested for throwing a candle holder at father in response to him hitting her. Mother explained that father “took off” that day because he was upset that mother took so long to get ready. He returned home at approximately 2:00 a.m., and the parents began arguing. Father hit mother because she touched his tool box and she had makeup on. Father did not like when mother wore makeup because she looked like a “whore.” She reported that she knew that father was having an affair, so he was looking for an excuse to leave.
Mother told the CSW that during the incident when father hit her mouth, the parents were talking at the maternal grandmother’s house. Mother said something to upset father, so he “socked” her on the cheek. The security officers in front of the building saw the altercation and called the police. Father was not arrested because mother refused to cooperate with the police.
Mother described another incident. She and the maternal grandmother went to run errands one morning. She returned home at approximately 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. and father was upset. Mother ignored father and began folding laundry. When she stood up, father slapped her and “busted” her lip. At that time, father had been on parole for hitting her on December 31, 2007, at the paternal grandmother’s home. Mother explained that she “went out of line and started talking bad stuff” about the paternal grandmother. Mother said that the paternal grandmother mistreated her. Also, mother said that she was frustrated with father because she worked and earned close to minimum wage and he did not work. With father there, mother was not paying her bills on time, but when she was alone, she paid her bills on time.
Mother stated that father knew that she was using methamphetamine because he noticed a difference in her. Father had tried to talk to mother and told her that she acted and looked “weird.” Mother did not disclose to father that she was using drugs, but she said that father knew she was using drugs.
Mother also reported that when father was released from prison, she was on welfare. She always paid the rent or hotel. Mother said that father never helped out with the minor, not until “the end” did mother ask father to pick up the minor. Mother wanted the minor to have a male figure in her life because she knew what it was like not to have one. Also, mother knew she was “messing up.”
The CSW also spoke to the minor. She said that she thought mother hit father by slapping him on the cheek. She also said that father hit mother by slapping his hand against her cheek. The minor said that she would tell father not to hit mother.
The minor also informed the CSW that she, mother, and father would stay in the minor’s bedroom together when J.C. was there.
The minor told the CSW that mother smoked a substance that had black smoke. She also saw father smoke.
The maternal grandmother reported that she was aware of the incident between the parents on December 31, 2007. Father slapped mother a couple of times in front of the paternal grandmother and the minor. The maternal grandmother saw red handprints on mother’s cheeks as a result of father slapping her.
The maternal grandmother also stated that she was aware of other instances of domestic violence between the parents. Father had resided in the maternal grandmother’s home. On several occasions, law enforcement was contacted, although father was not arrested. After father was released from prison in November 2007, he resided in her home without her consent. The verbal altercations between the parents continued and, on one occasions, the maternal grandmother was admonished by law enforcement for allowing father to reside there. In order to avoid further problems, the maternal grandmother offered the parents her home in Duarte. Although the parents and the minor moved, the maternal grandmother was aware that problems continued through February 2008, when she was able to help mother get father out of the house.
The paternal grandmother did not know if father was providing mother with financial support for the minor. He told the paternal grandmother that he would not give mother money because she would spend it on drugs. The paternal grandmother reported that the minor appeared neglected, dirty, and uncared for.
The paternal grandmother also informed the CSW that father had told her that mother did not have money to buy food for the minor. Thus, for a period of four weeks, father drove daily to pick the minor up, feed her, and then return her to mother.
Father’s parole officer, Steve Bartholomy (Bartholomy), reported that father had been on parole since his release on November 20, 2007. Bartholomy conducted unannounced visits with father once a month. On occasions where father was not located, Bartholomy left a card announcing his next visit. Bartholomy stated that as part of his conditions of parole, father was prohibited from having any contact with mother. Further, in his parole file, there was an expired restraining order protecting mother from father. Bartholomy recalled that on January 23, 2007, mother had a bruised face, which led to father’s arrest. Bartholomy knew father to be the aggressor in the relationship and, if father continued to have contact with mother, father would be in violation of his parole and ultimately rearrested.
At the September 16, 2008, hearing, father’s counsel requested a continuance for father to be ordered from local custody; the juvenile court granted his request.
Interim Review Report
In its October 20, 2008, interim review report, DCFS reported that father had been placed in custody at Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
At the October 20, 2008, jurisdiction/disposition hearing, father submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court based on the CSW’s reports. The juvenile court then sustained the following allegations against the parents, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g): (1) mother had a history of substance abuse and was a current drug abuser; (2) the parents had a history of domestic violence, including striking one another on repeated prior occasions; and (3) father had not provided the necessities of life for the minor, including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, which endangered her physical and emotional health and safety, placing her at risk of emotional harm and damage.
The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent of the court, finding by clear and convincing evidence that a substantial danger exists and there are no reasonable means to protect the minor without removing her from the custody of her parents.
Furthermore, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for father, including individual counseling to address case issues (domestic violence, parent education, and anger management) and monitored visitation. Father was also ordered to comply with all conditions of his parole. Finally, the juvenile court instructed father to verify a sober, stable, and law-abiding lifestyle.
The matter was then set for a six-month review hearing for April 14, 2009.
Appeal
On November 26, 2008, father timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings
A. Section 300, subdivision (b)
Father challenges the juvenile court’s findings pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), contending that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the minor had suffered, or was at a substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of father’s acts or omissions. As the parties correctly agree, we review the juvenile court’s order for substantial evidence (In re David M. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 822, 828, keeping in mind that the primary purpose of dependency proceedings is to serve the best interests of the child. (See Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255.) “‘All conflicts must be resolved in favor of [DCFS] and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the [findings], if possible.’” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1649.) We may not reweigh the evidence or redetermine the facts. (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 199–200.)
Section 300, subdivision (b) provides, in relevant part, that a child may fall within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court if that “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, or the willful or negligent failure of the child’s parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child from the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left.” (§ 300, subd. (b).) Three elements are necessary for a jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b): “(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the minor, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 820.)
Here, father does not dispute the first two elements specified in In re Rocco M., supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at page 820. Thus, we only consider whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the minor was at a substantial risk of serious harm. We conclude that there is such evidence.
In particular, the parents’ history of domestic violence places the minor at a substantial risk of serious harm. (See In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194; In re Jon N. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 156, 161.) And, the instances of domestic violence were not merely ancient history that was adequately dealt with and satisfactorily put behind everyone. To the contrary, even after father completed his 52-week domestic violence course (from October 23, 2002, through December 16, 2003), there was still domestic violence between the parents. And, father was on parole from November 2007 through November 2009. Although one of the conditions of his parole was not to have any contact with mother, he continued to have contact with her. Moreover, mother admitted that she did not always cooperate with the police. Finally, the abuse occurred in the minor’s presence, as the minor informed the CSW that she saw her parents hitting each other. Under these circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably infer that the minor was at a substantial risk of serious harm. (§ 300, subd. (b); In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 194.)
Father’s reliance upon In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 is misplaced. In that case, the Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b). (In re S.O., supra, at p. 456.) Although the Court of Appeal noted that the domestic violence in that case (the presumed father had slapped the mother) had occurred more than a year before the jurisdictional dispositional hearing, the presumed father had moved out of the family home almost nine months before the hearing, the presumed father had not had unsupervised contact with the subject child since his birth, and the mother had completed services in the dependencies of her older children, “[o]ther factors... demonstrate[d] a risk that [the mother] would allow [the presumed father] unsupervised contact with [the subject child].” (Id. at p. 462.)
Likewise, in the instant case, no instances of domestic violence had been reported for over a year prior to the filing of the section 300 petition. As in In re S.O., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at page 462, “[o]ther factors, however, demonstrate a risk” to the minor. For example, while the parents may not have been living together, father was, at a minimum, often spending the night. In fact, the minor reported to the CSW that father, mother, and the minor slept in the same room. Further, father was in violation of his conditions of parole by having contact with mother. And, even after father completed his year-long domestic violence program, there continued to be domestic violence between the parents. Taken together, these factors indicate a substantial risk of harm.
Apart from the domestic violence issue (see Randi R. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 67, 72 [there need be only one basis for jurisdiction]), father’s failure to provide support for the minor provided an additional and independent basis for jurisdiction over the minor. Mother informed the CSW that father did not provide support for the minor. She later said that father never helped out, not until “the end,” when she asked him to pick up the minor. Moreover, mother stated that in December 2007, she was frustrated with father because she worked, but father did not, so she was not paying her bills on time.
The paternal grandmother confirmed that father said he was not giving mother money.
Importantly, during his interview with the CSW, father admitted as much. While he explained that his failure to provide support was because mother was receiving welfare and his wages were being garnished, he offers no legal authority to support the proposition that wage garnishment excuses a failure to provide support for a child.
Father argues that even if we find that he was “neglectful regarding the amount/type of support he provided, there is no indication that the neglect caused a substantial risk of serious harm or illness.” We disagree. Father’s failure to provide support forced mother to contact father, with whom she had a turbulent relationship filled with domestic violence, because she did not have money to feed the minor. This evidence alone establishes that father’s failure to provide support for the minor placed her at a substantial risk of serious harm.
B. Section 300, subdivision (g)
We similarly conclude that the juvenile court properly sustained the allegation against father pursuant to section 300, subdivision (g). Section 300, subdivision (g) provides, in relevant part, that a child may be adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court if “[t]he child has been left without any provision for support.” (§ 300, subd. (g).)
The minor falls within this statutory definition. She was living with mother, who abused drugs and could not provide the minor with food. Moreover, the paternal grandmother informed the CSW that the minor appeared neglected, not cared for, and dirty. While father stepped in when mother called and asked for his help, we cannot ignore his failure to provide support between the time he left until mother’s recent request for help.
In re Matthew S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1311 is distinguishable. In that case, the father was out of the country and the mother had primary custody of the subject child. However, there was no evidence that the child had been left without any provision for support and there was no evidence that that was so. Although the mother’s financial resources were “strained,” she had been supporting her children for years and was continuing to do so. In particular, there was “no evidence of malnutrition, deprivation of shelter, clothes or medical care for” the child. (Id. at p. 1320.)
In contrast, in the instant case, there was evidence of deprivation of food and care for the minor. Specifically, mother informed father that she did not have money to buy the minor food. While father responded positively to mother’s request for help, as of August 2008, he had only been picking the minor up and feeding her for a period of four weeks. And then he would return her to mother, who did not have the means to care for the minor. Finally, as noted above, the paternal grandmother advised the CSW that the minor appeared neglected and not cared for.
II. The juvenile court made a proper case plan
Father objects to the juvenile court’s order that he participate in parenting education, individual counseling to address case issues including domestic violence, anger management classes, and that he verify his sobriety. We review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. (In re Baby Boy H. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 470, 474.) A juvenile court abuses its discretion only if its decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
Pursuant to section 362, the juvenile court has the discretion to fashion dispositional orders that are reasonable “for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child.” (§ 362, subd. (a); see also In reCorrine W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 522, 532.) Section 362, subdivision (c), provides: “The juvenile court may direct any and all 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 the provisions of this section.... 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.” (§ 362, subd. (c); see also In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 172.) This provision and others in the Welfare and Institutions Code “have been broadly interpreted to authorize a wide variety of remedial orders intended to protect the safety and well-being of dependent children.” (In re Carmen M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 478, 486.)
In light of our conclusion that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the minor was at a risk of harm as a result of her parents’ history of domestic violence, the juvenile court’s order compelling father to participate in individual counseling to address domestic violence and anger management classes was well within its discretion.
We also conclude that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in ordering father to verify his sobriety. The juvenile court was presented with evidence that father may have used drugs. Specifically, the minor informed the CSW that father smoked with mother, and that father was friends with J.C., the man who lived with mother and who was arrested when law enforcement executed a search warrant at mother’s home. While father claims only to smoke cigarettes, the minor’s statement provides a reasonable basis for the juvenile court’s order. Finally, we note that the juvenile court’s authority in fashioning a disposition order is not limited to the issues raised by its jurisdictional findings. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., DOI TODD, J.