Opinion
A156528 A156937
11-22-2019
In re G.F., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.T., et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. JD18-3220, JD18-3220A)
R.T. (Mother) and C.F. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court's order finding jurisdiction over their children, G.F. and W.F., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (c). Mother also appeals from the subsequent disposition order imposing certain conditions on her as part of the family maintenance services. The parents contend insufficient evidence supported the jurisdictional finding, and the conditions imposed on Mother are unrelated to the conditions that led to the jurisdictional finding. We disagree and affirm the orders.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. BACKGROUND
In September 2018, Father called the police and asserted Mother drove the minors while drunk. The police did not observe signs of intoxication and did not arrest Mother. Father also informed a mandated reporter that Mother drove the minors while drunk, who then provided that information to the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency). Father subsequently spoke with Protective Services Worker (PSW) Payette and alleged Mother engages in "excessive drinking and unsafe behavior." He also reported Mother drinks a bottle of wine or more a day and expressed concern that Mother was taking the children to Southern California to " 'party.' " The social worker interviewed the children regarding these allegations. G.F. cried during the interview and stated Mother's friend informed Mother she should not drive home because she had been drinking. G.F. stated she felt nervous on the drive home, and she also had been nervous driving with Mother on previous occasions for similar reasons. W.F. confirmed the incident and stated he was " 'very worried' " Mother would go to jail.
PSW Payette also spoke with Mother and the mandated reporter regarding Father's allegations. Mother stated Father coaches the children and tells them she is crazy and going to jail. Mother further stated Father has engaged in acts of domestic violence and sexual assault toward her. She stated one incident led to her grabbing a knife to protect herself. Mother denied any unsafe conduct and asserted she only drinks one or two glasses of wine every other day. She voluntarily agreed to only drive the children with another adult present.
The mandated reporter confirmed G.F.'s statements, stated he believed G.F.'s disclosure was not forced or coached, and expressed concern regarding G.F.'s stress levels due to parental discord.
The Agency conducted a child and family team meeting, at which a safety plan was developed regarding Mother's upcoming trip to Southern California, and Mother disclosed she obtained a restraining order against Father. In response, the Agency obtained a warrant authorizing the minors' removal from Mother because Father was no longer present to ensure their safety. The minors were transported to an emergency placement with family friends.
The Children's Advocacy Center conducted another interview with the minors. G.F. again described the drinking and driving incident, but noted Mother "seemed fine to her" and she did not know whether Mother was drinking. G.F. cried during the interview and stated she was worried because Mother and Father were trying to take her away from each other, always fought, and called the police on each other. G.F. also reported Father yelled and slammed doors. W.F. reported feeling sad when his parents are mean to each other. He described the drinking and driving incident, noting he saw Mother drinking wine and beer. W.F. stated Mother acts " 'silly' " when drinking. W.F. also recounted Father yelling and "being mean."
The Agency received a letter from the minors' pediatrician, which discussed treatment for G.F.'s physical symptoms of anxiety arising from the family's situation. The pediatrician stated G.F. had trouble sleeping, was tired, had daily headaches, and previously had difficulty swallowing. A. The Dependency Petition
In October 2018, the Agency filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (c) (serious emotional damage) to establish dependency jurisdiction over the minors based on allegations of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and anger management. The petition alleged the parents' relationship is "characterized by violence," including alleged sexual assault on the Mother, verbal abuse, both parents yelling at each other, and Father slamming doors. As to Mother, the petition alleges Mother drove while intoxicated with the minors and "bumped" another car. The petition notes G.F. was exhibiting physical symptoms of anxiety and W.F. was referred for discipline at school due to punching another student.
At the initial detention hearing, the court ordered the minors temporarily detained. Mother and Father subsequently participated in mediation and reached an agreement that the court adopted in lieu of a contested detention hearing. That agreement provided for Mother to (1) continue Soberlink, (2) participate in individual therapy and a substance abuse assessment, and (3) have another sober adult in the car while driving the minors. The agreement required Father to participate in anger management classes and individual therapy. Based on the agreement, the Agency withdrew its request for detention.
Soberlink is a private alcohol monitoring system utilized by Mother after the Agency requested she drug test through the Agency's contracted provider.
In November 2018, the court conducted a contested hearing on Mother's request for a permanent restraining and move-out order. Mother testified she gets scared and cannot think when Father gets angry. She stated that, on a daily basis, Father will yell, hit walls and doors, threaten Mother and her family, and threaten to put Mother in jail and take away the children. Mother testified she began calling the police, but they only suggested she go to a shelter, and she was worried about the impact that would have on the minors. Mother described an event in their kitchen, during which Father was threatening her, it was "intense" and she "couldn't take it anymore," and she picked up a knife and told Father to "Get the fuck out of here." Mother also described an instance of alleged sexual assault, during which Father was on top of her and would not get off her. Mother stated she did not call the police at that time because she "was able to take care of it" and did not want more drama. Mother also testified Father physically stopped her and the minors from getting into an Uber, which caused her to feel intimidated and scared. The court was prepared to continue the hearing for further testimony, but noted the testimony provided by Mother "does not rise to the level where a restraining order would be appropriate . . . ." Mother subsequently waived the remainder of the hearing and accepted the court's denial of her application for a permanent restraining order. The court then issued a mutual stay-away order consistent with the parents' mediation agreement. It also denied Mother's request to allow her to drive alone with the minors and Father's request to alternate custody on Saturdays. B. The Disposition and Addendum Reports
It does not appear the Agency filed a separate jurisdiction report, and no such report is included in the record provided to this court.
The Agency filed a disposition report recommending the court sustain the allegations in the petition. The report recounted the allegations of alcohol abuse by Mother and domestic violence by Father.
The report summarized the parents' efforts to engage in therapeutic services. Mother informed the social worker she had identified four therapists and was planning to contact them. The Agency connected Father to two professionals, one for individual therapy and the other for anger management. Father began the anger management intake process, but continued to deny having an anger management problem. The report is unclear as to whether Father contacted the therapist. The report also noted Mother had been completing breathalyzer testing through Soberlink approximately three times per day, all of which yielded normal results. Mother completed her substance abuse assessment with the Department of Public Health, which recommended no treatment and concluded Mother did not have a substance use disorder.
The report detailed the minors' emotional status. The parents asserted the minors are doing well. However, G.F. reported, " 'I don't feel safe with both parents sometimes.' " W.F. stated he wanted Mother to stop drinking and Father to stop being mean, and he feels sad that Mother and Father are mean to each other. The report expressed concern about the impact of the parental separation on the minors, noting, "The parents are going through a toxic separation and they have placed the children in the middle of their tumultuous relationship, which has made an impact on the children's emotion wellbeing." It further noted the minors had witnessed the parents' arguments, and both minors expressed sadness and fear about these events. The report also expressed longer term impacts, stating G.F. is "hyper-vigilant" and "guarded," and both minors recognized the problematic situation but attempted to keep it a secret to protect their family from the Agency and police. G.F. was assessed as "meet[ing] medical necessities for individual therapy." G.F. had stopped attending her prior therapy and expressed reluctance at returning to see that provider.
The report concluded by recommending family maintenance services for the family. It noted the minors reported improvements at home, which the Agency believed may be due to its involvement, the stay-away order, and requirements of the parents' mediation agreement. The report explained "The parents do not have the co-parenting skills and a healthy relationship and communication" to ensure a family separation that is healthy for the minors. It stated, "The parents need monitoring and need to participate in therapeutic and anger management services for a period of time before dismissing this case."
In December 2018, the Agency filed an addendum report prior to the jurisdiction hearing. That report provided updates regarding Mother's and Father's compliance with their therapy and (for Mother) alcohol testing, as well as an update on the minors' mental health. As to Mother, the report expressed concern with Mother's Soberlink testing, specifically as to her control over when the tests occurred, one positive test, and her failure to follow proper protocol for the retest following the positive test. The report also noted Mother had yet to participate in therapy, although Mother had made efforts to identify an appropriate therapist. As to Father, the report noted he had two therapy sessions and one meeting with an anger management professional. Finally, the addendum report stated the Agency completed the minors' "Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths" screening and recommended individual counseling for both G.F. and W.F. The report restated the same recommendations as contained in the disposition report. It emphasized "the Agency would like to see the parents be engaged in the recommended services such as mental health and substance abuse so they can demonstrate to the Agency and this Court their ability to provide to the children a safe living environment . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] The Agency is concerned about the fact that the children are not participating in therapy yet. The children must have a mental health provider who can monitor their safety and wellbeing other than the Agency."
In January 2019, the Agency filed a second addendum report. This report noted Father continued to deny having an anger management issue, and his individual therapist "closed [Father's] referral" because he "needs more support than she can provide and . . . she recommends [Father] continue participating in individual therapy." The report also noted Mother had yet to begin therapy and recounted the past month of alcohol screenings, which included five missed tests and one positive test. The addendum report stated the minors had been referred to two clinics for therapy services but had yet to complete the intake process or receive services. C. The Contested Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing
At the request of Mother's counsel, the court first held a contested hearing only on the issue of jurisdiction. PSW Payette, PSW Martinez, and Mother provided testimony. PSW Payette testified regarding her interview with G.F. Payette stated G.F. was "tearful," "exhausted," and "the way she was holding her body she was very tense and constricted." She testified G.F. "appeared to be carrying . . . a big emotional load," and she was concerned about G.F.'s emotional health. Payette further testified her training included how to interview children and assess truthfulness, and she believed G.F.'s statements regarding Mother's drinking were neither forced nor coached. Payette also described her interview with W.F., stating he was "calm, matter of fact" and seemed "very forthcoming and genuine." However, he expressed worry that Mother would go to jail because Father had called the police on her. Payette noted W.F.'s expression of worries was new and, combined with "some behavioral problems in the school," may indicate he is externalizing his feelings. Payette acknowledged Mother did not have any criminal record, there was no evidence that Mother's alcohol use impeded the minors' education, numerous letters in support of Mother stated she did not have an alcohol abuse issue, and the minors' pediatrician did not express any concerns regarding Mother's care of the minors.
PSW Martinez testified as to her recommendation in the disposition and addendum reports that the petition be sustained and the family receive family maintenance services. She recounted W.F. stating he did not feel safe with both of his parents because "my mom used to drink a lot and my dad used to scream at my mom." W.F. informed her the situation had improved because Mother was not drinking and Father was not living in the family home. Martinez also testified, as of mid-January 2019, neither the minors nor Mother had started therapy although G.F. had been in therapy in the fall. Martinez noted the minors had been referred to two providers in December 2018, and Mother stated she had identified four potential individual therapists in November 2018. Martinez recounted a conversation with G.F.'s school social worker, in which the school social worker stated G.F. "really needs to be in individual therapy." However, Martinez acknowledged both parents informed her G.F.'s mental state had improved and she was not suffering from various physical symptoms. Martinez also acknowledged Mother was competent to make necessary appointments for the minors.
PSW Martinez further testified she does not know whether Mother has a substance abuse problem. She confirmed no provider has indicated Mother has a substance abuse problem, and the assessment by the Department of Public Health concluded Mother did not have a substance abuse problem. However, Martinez expressed concern with Mother's alcohol consumption because Father and the minors expressed such concern, Mother had yet to begin therapy which may address such issues, and Mother had not complied with the Soberlink protocol but instead set up her own testing schedule.
PSW Martinez noted the parents have not displayed a "healthy parental concern for the emotional well-being of the children," as evidenced by the police coming to the house on multiple occasions. She expressed concern for the emotional safety of the children, regardless of whether the allegations regarding substance abuse and anger management are true, because of the existing dynamics between Mother and Father.
Following the testimony of PSW Payette and PSW Martinez, Mother brought a motion for nonsuit pursuant to section 350, subdivision (c). Mother argued the court must assess whether, at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, there was a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the minors. She claimed the evidence did not support such a finding. The court took the motion under submission.
After reviewing the evidence and considering authorities cited by Mother's counsel, the court granted the motion as to those allegations related to the parents' failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)), but denied the motion as serious emotional damage (id., subd. (c)). The court further stated it would conform the serious emotional damage charge to proof. In denying the motion as to that count, the court concluded both minors fell within the allegation of emotional abuse, explaining: "There are slamming doors. There is yelling. Both parents call the police on each other. The children are afraid that Mother is going to go to jail. One parent apparently held a knife in a threatening manner toward the other. There was testimony that the anxiety is crushing for [G.F.] and that she is manifesting physical symptoms. This is noted by her pediatrician and her therapist. [¶] Both minors describe Father as mean. [G.F.] is hypervigilant. [W.F.] described himself as scared. [¶] [PSW] Payette described [G.F.] as exhausted and very, very tearful. [W.F.] described himself as sad. [¶] . . . [I]t is . . . quite clear that the discord and the hostile relationship between both parents are having a severe impact on both of these minors . . . ." The court rejected Mother's argument that such harm is alleviated because the parents are no longer residing together. It found "both minors continue to suffer emotional damage as a result of the parents' relationship" and noted not much progress had been made toward alleviating the stress faced by the minors.
Following the court's ruling on Mother's motion for nonsuit, Mother testified on her own behalf. She testified G.F. was a happier child, and was no longer having any eating or sleeping problems and only rarely having headaches. She testified W.F. used to get "really angry and then really sad," but had begun coming to her when he gets upset. Mother marked the changes as occurring around the time she and Father obtained separate households. Mother noted the minors still had some anxiety, but it was "definitely less." She acknowledged neither child was in therapy but stated she was "Absolutely" willing for them to have individual therapy. She stated the minors had been meeting with their school social worker, who had not expressed any concerns to Mother. Mother also had taken the children twice to Kids' Turn, which helps address self-care and emotional needs during family separation and divorce. Mother also stated she had recently started counseling with a family and marriage therapist.
Following her testimony, Mother again renewed her request for nonsuit as to the serious emotional damage charge. The court denied this request, holding that Mother's testimony did not rebut the Agency's showing. The court noted, in addition to the previously identified grounds for sustaining the serious emotional damage charge, Mother's testimony identified additional concerns—namely, that the parents were unable to agree on initiating a therapy intake session for the minors or adequately communicate about a family trip to Las Vegas.
The court subsequently conducted a disposition hearing. The parents agreed to submit to the Agency's recommendation for an in-home dependency with the minors to reside with both parents, subject to certain requirements set forth in the Agency's disposition report and as orally modified by the parties at the hearing. Mother subsequently appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition orders, and Father appealed from the jurisdiction order.
II. DISCUSSION
The parents contend the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (c) because the minors were not suffering serious emotional damage and were not at substantial risk of suffering such damage. Mother further contends the juvenile court erred in requiring her to participate in alcohol monitoring and therapy regarding alcohol dependency as part of its disposition order. A. Jurisdiction
"We review the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings for substantial evidence. [Citation.] 'Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which adequately supports a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value.' [Citation.] Although substantial evidence may consist of inferences, the inferences ' "must be 'a product of logic and reason' and 'must rest on the evidence' [citation]; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding [citations]." ' [Citation.] Conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the prevailing party. [Citation.] '[I]ssues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact.' [Citation.] The juvenile determination will not be disturbed unless it exceeds the bounds of reason." (In re Roxanne B. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 916, 920 (Roxanne B.).)
"Pursuant to section 300, subdivision (c), a child comes under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, if '[t]he child is suffering serious emotional damage, or is at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others, as a result of the conduct of the parent or guardian or who has no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care. No child shall be found to be a person described by this subdivision if the willful failure of the parent or guardian to provide adequate mental health treatment is based on a sincerely held religious belief and if a less intrusive judicial intervention is available.' " (Roxanne B., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 921.)
The parents contend W.F. was not suffering serious emotional damage because the one disciplinary incident does not demonstrate a pattern of " 'untoward aggressive behavior,' " he was not displaying emotional distress during his interviews, and he had been calmer and doing well in school. Likewise, the parents contend G.F. was not suffering serious emotional damage because there was a reduction in her symptoms after Father moved out, and past evidence of anxiety was "almost four months old." We disagree.
The record evidences the parents have historically placed the minors in the middle of their disputes. While it appears the mediation agreement and stay-away order helped to minimize such conduct, the record supports a finding that the minors have suffered serious emotional damage as a result of Mother's and Father's conduct. G.F. and W.F. witnessed their parents' arguments, and both minors expressed sadness and fear about these events. G.F.'s symptoms included difficulty sleeping, daily headaches, and difficulty swallowing. The anxiety was described as "crushing for [G.F.]." The Agency social worker described G.F. as "tearful," "exhausted," "tense," and "hyper-vigilant," and expressed concern regarding her emotional health. While Mother asserted G.F. was doing better, she acknowledged G.F. continued to suffer from anxiety. Likewise, W.F. reported feeling sad, worried, and unsafe with his parents. W.F. used to get "really angry and then really sad." And Mother testified W.F. still gets angry, although he had begun sharing these feelings with her.
While G.F.'s decrease in physical symptoms and W.F.'s increased calmness at the time of the jurisdictional hearing are positive, the record does not evidence any meaningful steps taken by the parents to address the long-term ramifications of Mother's and Father's past conduct. As noted in the disposition report, "The parents do not have the co-parenting skills and a healthy relationship and communication" to ensure a family separation that is healthy for the minors. This lack of coparenting skills is evidenced by the parents' failure to enroll the minors in individual therapy, despite assessments and the school social worker recommending both children for therapy. G.F. stopped seeing her prior therapist in September 2018, and had not attended any other individual therapy at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. Likewise, W.F. had not attended any individual therapy, and Mother cancelled an upcoming intake appointment at a clinic because "[F]ather was not comfortable."
We further note at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, Mother had only recently begun seeing a family and marriage therapist, and Father continued to deny having an anger management issue. Father's individual therapist "closed [Father's] referral" because he "needs more support than she can provide and . . . she recommends [Father] continue participating in individual therapy," and there is no evidence regarding what efforts Father has made to find another therapist. As noted by the Agency, "The parents need monitoring and need to participate in therapeutic and anger management services for a period of time before dismissing this case." The parents have not demonstrated an ability to overcome the past dynamics of their relationship in order to establish a healthy coparenting relationship for the minors.
Apart from failing to arrange for therapy for the minors, another such example was the parents' inability to adequately communicate regarding vacation planning for the minors over the Christmas holiday.
The fact that the minors have been removed from the parents' direct conflict for a few months, and are responding positively to that reprieve, does not undo the period of trauma they experienced. In Roxanne B., the minor exhibited signs of possible emotional problems and suicidal thoughts. (Roxanne B., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) The minor's parents did not appear to take the minor's mental health problems seriously. (Id. at pp. 918-919.) Only after involvement by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did the mother take the minor to therapy, secure necessary medication, and obtain an individualized education plan to assist the minor in school. (Id. at p. 919.) DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging the parents caused the minor serious emotional damage, and the court concluded the minor "was a child described by section 300, subdivision (c)." (Roxanne B., at pp. 919-920.) On appeal, the parents argued in part that the minor "was not emotionally damaged at the time of the jurisdiction hearing because [the minor] had already been in therapy for six months, was taking her medications, had all appropriate services in place for her mental health needs, had not had another incident of suicidal ideations in months, had a school counselor to talk to when she was not feeling well, was consistently attending mental health sessions, and had Mother's support during her treatment over the last six months." (Id. at pp. 921-922.) The court rejected this argument, noting the minor continued to suffer from mental health issues and the parents only obtained treatment for the minor after DCFS's involvement. (Id. at p. 922.) It affirmed the jurisdictional finding, concluding, "The court had good reason to believe, based on DCFS's experience with the Parents, that the Parents would cause [the minor] even more serious emotional damage by ceasing her treatment and ignoring her obvious mental health care needs in the future." (Ibid.)
Here, the record indicates the parents began shielding the minors from their negative interactions and obtained separate households only after involvement by the Agency. And even with the Agency's involvement, G.F. had not received therapy since September 2018, despite being exposed to ongoing conflict and the physical separation of her parents during this period. W.F. had never received therapy. Mother cancelled the scheduled therapy intake for the minors because Father felt uncomfortable. Neither Mother nor Father had meaningfully engaged in their own therapy at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. Father continued to deny having anger problems. Mother was self-testing for alcohol use, but would not modify her testing to match Soberlink's recommended testing schedule despite the Agency's request that she do so. Accordingly, we cannot conclude the juvenile court erred in finding G.F. and W.F. within the jurisdiction of the court as children "suffering serious emotional damage" or "at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage." (§ 300, subd. (c).) B. Disposition
Mother also challenges the court's dispositional order requiring her to continue breathalyzer testing for alcohol use and to participate in therapy regarding alcohol dependency.
Preliminarily, the Agency contends Mother waived her right to appeal the dispositional order by submitting on the recommendations for disposition. Generally, submitting "on a social worker's recommendation dispels any challenge to and, in essence, endorses the court's issuance of the recommended findings and orders. Consequently, a parent who submits on a recommendation waives his or her right to contest the juvenile court's decision if it coincides with the social worker's recommendation." (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 813.) In contrast, where a parent submits on a particular report or record, he or she acquiesces to the state of the evidence while preserving the right to challenge it as insufficient to support a particular legal conclusion. (In re Tommy E. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1237.) Under those circumstances, "the parent does not waive for appellate purposes his or her right to challenge the propriety of the court's orders." (In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.)
Here, the record is unambiguous—Mother submitted on the Agency recommendations, not on a particular report or record. At the beginning of the disposition hearing, the Agency informed the court "the parties will be submitting to the department's recommendation[s]." The Agency then read through those specific recommendations and discussed certain modifications agreed to by the parties. These recommendations included subjecting Mother to breathalyzer testing and therapy for alcohol dependency. The juvenile court then asked, "Everybody agrees to this. Let me just make sure." Mother's counsel then responded, "Mother submits." By submitting on the Agency's recommendations for disposition, Mother waived any claim of insufficient evidence to support the court's disposition order. (See Steve J. v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 813.)
Notwithstanding Mother's waiver of this issue, we find substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's order. After a child has been adjudged a dependent child of the court "the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child . . . ." (§ 362, subd. (a).) "The program in which a parent . . . 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." (Id., subd. (d).) "We cannot reverse the court's determination in this regard absent a clear abuse of discretion." (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006.)
Here, the minors reported feeling unsafe with Mother due to her drinking. W.F. repeatedly expressed sadness and concern about Mother's drinking and stated his situation had improved in part due to Mother no longer drinking. Despite the minors' concerns regarding Mother's alcohol consumption, Mother demonstrated an unexplained reluctance in modifying her Soberlink testing to match the recommended protocol that the last test occur just prior to bed. Instead, Mother usually took her last test between approximately 5:45 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Regardless of whether Mother has an alcohol problem, alcohol consumption negatively impacted the family dynamics and is a direct source of concern and anxiety for the children. The juvenile court thus did not abuse its discretion by requiring Mother to address these concerns as part of the family maintenance plan.
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
Margulies, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Banke, J. /s/_________
Sanchez, J.