NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

MILLER, Acting P. J.

The juvenile court found the three children of defendant and appellant J.C.C. (Father) came within the court's jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)1 Father contends the juvenile court erred by (1) requiring him to complete a domestic violence program; (2) requiring him to complete a substance abuse treatment program; and (3) suspending his visits with his children. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. BACKGROUND

In June 2016, B.M. (Mother) was 23 years old and Father was 21 years old. Mother and Father (collectively, Parents) were not married but had been in a relationship for approximately 12 years, with a four-year separation. Mother had five children, three of which she shared with Father: (1) J.C., a male, born in 2009; (2) R.C., a female, born in 2015; and (3) R.E.C., a male, born in February 2016 (collectively, the Children).

B. DETENTION

On May 21, 2016, San Bernardino Police Officer Wick was on patrol when he stopped and questioned Father. Father and the officer engaged in a verbal and physical altercation. Father ran to his home and barricaded himself inside with a .22-caliber rifle. Mother, who had been sitting outside with R.C., released a pitbull and tried to take the officer's firearm.

Officers forced their way inside the home. Another physical fight with Father occurred inside the home. After Father was arrested, officers found Parents' two sons in a back bedroom. A loaded shotgun was found lying next to the family's car. Drug paraphernalia was on the coffee table. J.C. told a social worker from San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) that he was scared of the guns at the house. Parents were arrested on various felony charges, including willfully causing a child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). The Department placed the Children in foster care. The juvenile court found a prima facie case was established for detaining the Children outside of their home.

C. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION

Parents explained that Father had a marijuana dispensary business, which permitted him to have scales and glass pipes. Parents used marijuana. Father used marijuana to treat his back pain and had a medical marijuana card. Parents were referred to random drug testing and assigned a color for testing purposes; however, the Department was unable to reach Parents regarding the random drug testing, despite multiple voice messages. Father said that, due to the Children being removed, "he is emotional and drinking more."

The juvenile court found the Children suffered, or were at a substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm as result of Parents' failure or inability to parent the Children. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The juvenile court found true the following allegations related to Father: (1) Father had a history of substance abuse that affected his ability to appropriately and safely care for the Children; (2) Father had a criminal history that affected his ability to adequately care for the Children; and (3) Father exposed the Children to an unsafe situation by engaging in a physical altercation with the police while the Children were present.

D. VISITATION

Father failed to appear for his drug tests on June 13, July 21, and July 25. Father told the Department he was using alcohol and marijuana to self-medicate. Father was emotional, in part, due to his pending criminal charges.

In September, the Department requested Father's visits with the Children be terminated. On September 13, Father had visited the Children at the Department's office. Father appeared to be under the influence in that he had "low glazed eyes and slurred speech." While at the visit, in front of the Children, Father used profanity and raised his voice while speaking to a Department social worker. J.C. began crying. The social worker and a security guard ended the visit and the social worker demanded Father take a drug test. Father refused to submit to a drug test. The juvenile court terminated Father's visits with the Children due to the visits being detrimental.

E. SIX-MONTH STATUS REVIEW

Father completed individual counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Father enrolled in outpatient substance abuse treatment, but he failed to attend and was terminated from the program. Between July 2016 and January 2017, Father had 10 no-show drug tests as well as three positive tests for THC and benzodiazepines.

Mother participated in individual counseling, during which it was revealed that there were violent tendencies in Parents' relationship. The Department recommended that Parents participate in domestic violence services.

As part of Father's case plan, he was required to "enroll [in] and complete a drug treatment program." Father was also required to participate in a domestic violence program. Father's visits remained suspended, but could resume if he made progress on his case plan.

DISCUSSION

A. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM

Father contends the juvenile court erred by requiring him to participate in a domestic violence program because there was no finding that Father engaged in domestic violence.

"The juvenile court has wide latitude in making orders necessary for the well-being of a minor. By statute, the court may make `all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child. . . .' (§ 362, subd. (a).) However, the same statute limits such orders to those that are designed to eliminate the conditions that brought the minor to the attention of the court. (§ 362, subd. (c).)" (In re Jasmin C. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 117, 180.)

If, after the original reunification plan is formulated, the court becomes aware of other issues that may impede the parent's ability to reunify with his child, then the court may address those additional issues in the reunification plan. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008.)

There is a split of authority concerning the standard of review. The substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards have been applied when reviewing juvenile court case plan decisions. (In re Jasmin C., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 180 [substantial evidence]; In re Christopher H., supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 [abuse of discretion].) We will review the juvenile court's decision under both standards.

Father fought with police while his sons were in the house. One of the charges against Father was willfully causing a child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).) This evidence reflects Father engaged in violence with officers while the Children were in the house.

During a visit at the Department's offices, when Father appeared to be under the influence, Father said he wanted to speak to a social worker. J.C. said, "`Okay dad, just don't curse.'" Father proceeded to use profanity and increase the volume of his voice. J.C. cried in response. It can reasonably be inferred from this evidence that J.C. fears Father's temper because J.C. cried when Father acted out of anger.

When Mother attended individual therapy, she disclosed there were "violent tendencies" in her relationship with Father. Mother was unable to identify the cycles of violence and triggers in her relationships. The therapist identified "abuse" as a current issue confronting the family. It can reasonably be inferred from this evidence that there is domestic violence in Parents' relationship. It can also be inferred that, within Parents' relationship, they do not understand how to stop the cycle of violence.

In sum, the evidence reflects (1) Father engaged in violence while the children were in the house; (2) J.C. feared Father's temper; (3) there was violence in Parents' relationship; and (4) Parents lacked an understanding of how to stop the cycle of violence. The juvenile court could reasonably find from the foregoing evidence that domestic violence is an issue that may impede Father's ability to reunify with the Children. For example, if J.C. continues to fear Father's temper, it may result in difficulty showing a strong parent-child bond. Domestic violence programs could help resolve the issue because Parents could learn the skills to identify and stop the cycle of violence in their relationship.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, (1) under the substantial evidence standard of review, we conclude the evidence supports the juvenile court's imposition of a domestic violence program as part of Father's case plan; and (2) under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we conclude the juvenile court acted within the bounds of reason by imposing a domestic violence program as part of Father's case plan because the evidence reflects the program could help resolve an issue that would be an impediment to Father reunifying with the Children.

B. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM

Father contends, as a matter of law, the juvenile court violated the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which permits recreational use of marijuana, by requiring Father to complete a substance abuse treatment program. (Initiative Measure (Prop. 64), § 8.1, approved Nov. 8, 2016, eff. Nov. 9, 2016).)2

At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true the allegation Father had a history of substance abuse that affected his ability to appropriately and safely care for the Children. (§ 300, subd. (b).) This finding reflects Father's drug and alcohol abuse affect his ability to parent the Children.

When Father resisted arrest by fighting with police officers inside his home, while the Children were present, an officer observed that Father "was extremely agitated, very angry, and displayed a great deal of strength." The officer concluded that Father's "level of strength and pain tolerance is what [the officer] normally see[s] from subjects who are under the influence of drugs such as methamphetamine and PCP." This evidence reflects that Father's substance abuse causes him to be extremely emotional, which can lead to violence.

During the June reporting period, Father said he was "emotional and drinking more," due to the Children being removed. During the August reporting period, Father told the Department he was using alcohol and marijuana to self-medicate. Father was experiencing stress due to his pending criminal charges. This evidence reflects Father abused substances to avoid addressing problems in his life, such as the problems that led to the dependency.

In September, Father was likely under the influence while visiting the Children at the Department's offices. Father had low eyelids, glazed eyes, slurred speech, and refused to submit to a drug test. Father raised his voice and used profanity while speaking to a social worker. J.C. cried when witnessing the incident. This evidence reflects Father continues to be emotional when under the influence and is under the influence when visiting the Children.

In sum, the record reflects (1) Father's substance abuse is one of the reasons for the dependency case (§ 300, subd. (b)); (2) Father's substance abuse causes him to be emotional, which can lead to violence; (3) Father abuses substances to avoid his emotions; and (4) Father is under the influence in the presence of the Children.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, (1) under the substantial evidence standard of review, we conclude the evidence supports the juvenile court's imposition of a substance abuse treatment program as part of Father's case plan; and (2) under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we conclude the juvenile court acted within the bounds of reason by imposing a substance abuse treatment program as part of Father's case plan because the evidence reflects the program could help resolve a condition that caused the dependency case.

Although the voters approved marijuana use by adults who are at least 21 years old, that does not mean use of marijuana has ceased to impede parenting skills. Father's substance abuse is uncontrolled. Father abuses substances to avoid his feelings, but ultimately lashes out at people while under the influence. Father's outbursts and violence have occurred while the Children were in the home and during a visit with the Children. Therefore, the legality of the abused substances is not the issue. The issue is Father's inability to control his emotional rages while under the influence in the presence of his Children.

C. VISITATION

Father contends the juvenile court erred by suspending Father's visitation with the Children because the evidence does not support the finding that the visits are detrimental.

Visitation between a parent and child must "be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child." (§ 362.1, subd. (a).) The child's well-being includes the child's physical and emotional well-being. (In re Matthew C. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1102.) If the visits are not consistent with the child's well-being, i.e., if the visits are detrimental, the juvenile court can deny visitation. (Ibid.; In re T.M. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1219.)

There is a split of authority concerning the standard of review that applies when reviewing an order denying visitation. Some courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard of review, while others have applied the substantial evidence standard. (In re T.M., supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 1219.) We apply both standards.

As explained in the prior section, regarding substance abuse treatment, the record reflects (1) Father's substance abuse is one of the reasons for the dependency case (§ 300, subd. (b)); (2) Father's substance abuse causes him to be emotional, which can lead to violence; (3) Father abuses substances to avoid his emotions; and (4) Father is under the influence in the presence of the Children.

At the visit, when J.C. witnessed Father's emotional outburst, J.C. cried. Father appeared to be under the influence during the visit because Father had low eyelids, glazed eyes, slurred speech, and refused to submit to a drug test. Father enrolled in outpatient substance abuse treatment, but he failed to attend and was terminated from the program. Between July 2016 and January 2017, Father had 10 no-show drug tests as well as three positive tests for THC and benzodiazepines.

The foregoing evidence reflects: (1) Father has angry, and sometimes violent, outbursts while under the influence; (2) Father has attended a visit with the Children while under the influence, and had an angry outburst during the visit, which caused J.C. to cry; and (3) Father's substance abuse issues are untreated. Under the substantial evidence standard, we conclude the foregoing evidence supports the finding that the visits are detrimental to the Children's well-being because the evidence reflects a risk that Father will be under the influence during future visits and have further angry, possibly violent, outbursts while the Children are present. Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, we conclude the juvenile court's suspension of visitation until Father makes progress on his case plan is reasonable because until Father controls his substance abuse issues, the visits with Father are detrimental to the Children due to the risk that Father will be under the influence during future visits and have additional angry, possibly violent, outbursts while the Children are present.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

CODRINGTON, J. and FIELDS, J., concurs.