In re v. V CA2/1

Filed 12/18/15 In re V. V CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 V.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the B262789 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK89344)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Reversed. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Francisco V. (father) appeals the juvenile court order requiring him to participate in a substance abuse program. We reverse. Father has three minor children with Christine A. (mother). The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on July 29, 2014, alleging under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) that father and mother engaged in violent altercations in front of the children and, as relevant to this appeal, alleging under section 300, subdivision (b) that father had a history of substance abuse and was a current user of amphetamine and methamphetamine, including while the children were in his care and supervision, thus endangering their physical health and safety. (Mother is not a party to this appeal and we do not discuss the allegations against her, or the allegations regarding her two minor children with another father.) Father denied any current substance abuse and stated he was willing to drug test. Mother also denied current use but stated she had relapsed five months ago when father gave her methamphetamine; a few days earlier she found methamphetamine in father’s wallet; and father last used methamphetamine five days earlier. Father denied that he ever used methamphetamine. The juvenile court detained father’s three minor children, gave father monitored visitation, and ordered him to drug test weekly on demand. The jurisdiction/disposition report stated that mother denied she ever said she had relapsed or that father had given her methamphetamine. Mother added that father did not currently use drugs and had not for the last three years. Father was not present at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on September 4, 2014. His counsel submitted a negative drug test, arguing that there was not sufficient evidence that father currently used methamphetamine and father already submitted to random testing for his job as a truck driver. The juvenile court sustained the domestic violence allegation. On the drug allegation, the court stated that there was a history of drug use by mother and father, but appeared to dismiss the allegations: “At this time, I