In re Matthew N. CA2/2

Filed 6/23/14 In re Matthew N. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re MATTHEW N., a Person Coming B251698 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK75938)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Annabelle Cortez, Judge. Affirmed. Cthristopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________________________

Appellant contends that the dependency court improperly ordered him to submit to alcohol testing and to participate in a 12-step program. We find that the dependency court’s dispositional order best served the interest of appellant’s child and thus was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND This matter came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on September 28, 2012. Three-year-old Mathew N. had been brought to the emergency room by S.W., Mother, for treatment of blisters resulting from burns on his back, buttocks, and thigh areas. Mother gave inconsistent explanations for Mathew’s burns. Finally, after failing a polygraph test, she admitted that she had hit Mathew and placed him in a bathtub with scalding hot water. Mathew was the subject of a prior dependency proceeding in 2009, when he was born prematurely at 24 weeks and tested positive for cocaine. In that proceeding, the dependency court sustained a count stating that Raymond N., Father, had a history of marijuana use and was a daily user of alcohol, leaving him unable to adequately protect and supervise Mathew. At the conclusion of the prior proceeding, Father was granted monitored visitation with Mathew. Mother had an extensive DCFS referral history, including for smoking crack cocaine in the presence of her children, and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and severe depression. Father had a considerable criminal history, including convictions for marijuana possession for sale, narcotics possession for sale, battery, and firearms offenses, and was on probation at the time the instant dependency proceeding was initiated for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Father’s probation term was scheduled to end on May 21, 2013. He was an “active father” to Mathew and visited Mathew pursuant to the prior visitation orders. A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition1 was filed on October 9, 2012, on behalf of Mathew as well as three half siblings (who are not subject to this