In re I.R. CA2/1

Filed 2/11/15 In re I.R. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re I.R., a Person Coming Under the B256667 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK02968)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIE R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tony L. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Patti L. Dikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Tyson B. Nelson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________________

Willie R. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s May 12, 2014 dispositional order made after I.R. (born in 2010) was adjudged a dependent of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support).1 Father contends the court abused its discretion in ordering Father to participate in drug and alcohol testing, arguing the order was not reasonable and was not designed to eliminate the conditions that led to the court adjudging I.R. a dependent of the court. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes there was no evidence linking Father’s falling asleep while caring for I.R. to substance abuse and agrees with Father that the order for testing does not purport to eliminate any condition that led to I.R.’s removal. DCFS also agrees that reversal of the court’s order is required.2 We conclude the court abused its discretion in ordering Father to participate in drug and alcohol testing and reverse that portion of the dispositional order. In all other respects, the dispositional order is affirmed.3 BACKGROUND The section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) petition DCFS filed a section 300 petition on behalf of I.R. on January 8, 2014, and a first amended petition on January 31, 2014. In a jurisdictional hearing that commenced on May 8, 2014, and concluded on May 12, 2014, the juvenile court sustained paragraph b-1 of the section 300 petition, which alleged that in January 2014 Mother was incarcerated and had failed to make an appropriate plan for I.R.’s care. Paragraph b-2 as sustained alleged Father repeatedly fell asleep at a hospital while I.R. was under his care and