Filed 1/9/14 In re Joseph B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re JOSEPH B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ANGELO B. et al., Defendants and Appellants. D064328
(Super. Ct. No. CJ1118)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. Jamie A. Moran, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Angelo B. Rosemary Bishop, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jamie M.2 Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy Co unty Counsel, for Plai ntiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION Angelo B. and Jamie M., the parents of Joseph B., appeal the juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition or der under Welfare and Institu tions Code section 300, subdivision (b). 1 Jamie and Joseph became homeless after they left Angelo following a fight between Jamie and Angelo. Joseph was detained in protective custody after Jamie checked herself in to a mental health facility reporting that she had thoughts of harming Joseph. The court determined removal was necessary and it would be detrimental to place Joseph with either parent based upon ev idence of mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Angelo challe nges the jurisdictional finding that he had been unable to protect and supervise Jose ph and further challenges the dispositional finding in which the court dec lined to place Joseph with Angelo. Jamie contends there is no substantial evidence to support the court' s finding that it woul d be detrimental to return Joseph to her care, claiming her ment al health has stabilized. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND
I.
Detention

1 All further references are to the Welf are and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. An order under section 300 is an appealable judgment. (§ 395, subd. (a).)3 In January 2013, when Joseph was 11 mont hs old, Jamie, checked herself into a mental health facility reporting she had though ts of hurting Joseph. Jamie has a history of mental illness including a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder requiring medication, which she ha d not been taking for several months. Joseph came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) after the Ag ency's child abuse hotline received a report that Jamie and Joseph had recently move d to San Diego, perhaps to get away from the baby's father. The report indicated that friends watched Jose ph because they were scared of what Jamie would do. Jamie had dropped Joseph off in a ca rrier at a childcare pa rking lot. She had also been kicked out of her mother's home and they had stay ed in several places where drugs were used. The referral stated that Jamie could not cope with the baby and had thoughts of wanting to physically harm him. Jamie reported to the investigating soci al worker that her relationship with Joseph's father, Angelo, was very abus ive. Angelo would come home high on methamphetamine or alcohol and would hit her and force her to have sex with him. She reported that Angelo beat her up in front of her older daughter. 2 Jamie and Joseph lived in Nevada with Angelo until June of 2012 when Jamie was escorted from the property by the sheriff following an in cident of domestic violence, which Jamie said occurred because she would not allow Angelo to have sex with her.

2 Jamie has an older daughter from anothe r marriage who lives with her father. Jamie had unsupervised visits with that child until the girl's father reported Jamie was "losing it" during visits. The judge in that case ordered Jamie to continue with her medication, maintain sobriety and to not allo w Angelo around her da ughter during visits.4 After this incident, she and Joseph en ded up living out of her car. Jamie felt overwhelmed and had not take n her medications since October 2012 because she was not able to provide an address for Medicaid benefits. Jami e admitted to a history of substance abuse, including use of me thamphetamine within recent months. When Jamie's cousin learned that Jami e and Joseph were homeless, she invited them to stay with her. Jami e arrived in California at the end of December 2012, but had left Joseph in the care of a friend until she co uld stabilize her mental health. The cousin drove to Las Vegas, Nevada, to get the child. The cousin reported she was concerned that Jamie would go back to Nevada a nd resume a relationship with Angelo. Joseph was detained in protective custod y due to Jamie's unsta ble mental health and because there was concern she would fl ee with Joseph to resume a violent and dysfunctional relationship with Angelo. 3 Jamie reported having a hard time connectin g with the child and feeling a lot of resentment towards him. She saw him as a reminder of a bad relationship and the product of someone who abused and raped her for years. However, she also reported that she loved Joseph, he was her hope, and she fe lt that she would not have a purpose to live without him. The social worker confirmed domestic violence episodes with Angelo. In September 2010, both Jamie and Angelo we re arrested for dome stic battery on each

3 Angelo testified that he called child pr otective services in Nevada around the time Joseph was taken to San Diego. There is no i ndication in the record that Nevada took any action on this report.5 other. Angelo stated he obtained a temporary restraining order against Jamie. In March 2011, Angelo's brother called sheriff deputie s reporting Angelo forcibly entered a home and began fighting the residents. Earlier, Angelo had fought with his brother, grabbed his neck and tried to strangle him, but Ryan, on e of the residents, in tervened. Ryan also intervened in a fight between Jamie and an other woman, putting Jamie in a chokehold. Angelo confronted Ryan about the incident and fought with him. The brother reported that every time Angelo drinks alcoholic beverages, he gets very violent. The Agency filed a petition under secti on 300, subdivision (b). The detention report recommended Joseph be detained beca use there was substantial danger to the physical and emotional health of the child and there was no reasonable means by which he could be protected withou t removing him from the parent s' or guardians' physical custody. There was substantial evidence that Jamie was likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court because Jamie wanted to return to Nevada to obtain housing. Jamie had unresolved mental health issu es and had been both a victim and perpetrator in domestic violence.
II. Detention Hearing Since the child had lived out of state within the prior six months, the court exercised emergency jurisdiction over the child at the detention hearing and indicated it would make an inquiry under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic tion and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.).6 At the January 24, 2011 hearing, the co urt found the Agency made a prima facie showing that Joseph was a child described by section 300, subdivision (b), and that initial removal was necessary. 4 Detention was necessary because of a substantial danger to the physical health of the child and there was no reasonable means to protect his physical or emotional health without removing him from pa rental custody. The court ordered the Agency to evaluate Jamie's c ousin's home for placement. If Joseph was to be placed with the cousin, the court gave the social worker discretion to a llow Jamie to reside in the home, but in a supervised setting, and only if Jamie was actively engaged in services.
III. Jurisdictional Hearings In February 2013, Jamie supported plac ement with her cous in and "vehemently expressed that she would not want [Angelo] to be considered for a possible placement option." Angelo, however, wanted Joseph pl aced with him and stated he could provide his son with a stable and nurturing home. The Agency's jurisdic tion/disposition report

4 Section 300 provides in pertinent par t: "Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juve nile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (b) The child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardia n to adequately supervise or protect the child, or the willful or negligent fa ilure of the child's parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child fro m the conduct of the custodian with whom the child has been left, or by the willful or negligent failu re of the parent or guardian to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, she lter, or medical treatment, or by the inability of the parent or guardia n to provide regular care for the child due to the parent's or guardian's mental illness, developmental disability, or substance abuse. . . . The child shall continue to be a depend ent child pursuant to this su bdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness."7 informed the court Joseph had no t yet been placed with Jami e's cousin because Jamie was living in the home and she was not actively engaged in services. At the February 14, 2013 hearing, Angelo appeared th rough appointed counsel and entered a denial to the petition. The cour t ordered the Agency to provide voluntary services to Angelo and allowe d telephonic or Skype visitation. The court indicated it would make the appropriate inquiry with Ne vada regarding the UC CJEA and would set a special hearing regarding this issue. After discovering that no proc eedings had been filed in Nevada regarding this child, th e court proceeded with jurisdiction. 5
Jamie later moved out of the cousin's home to accomm odate Joseph's placement with the cousin. He did well and Ja mie had liberal supervised visits. In March 2013, the court found the alle gations in the petition true and sustained the jurisdictional allegations under section 300, subdivisi on (b). The court noted that disposition was contested by bo th parents. The Agency r ecommended that Joseph remain placed with the cousin and th at Jamie receive reunification services, but live out of the

5 At a special hearing, the court inform ed the parties that it had contacted the chambers of the presiding judge for Clark County, Nevada and learned there were no family or juvenile cases regarding Joseph. The Nevada court provided information about a case regarding Jamie's daughter from a prev ious relationship. An order was entered precluding Jamie from having any contact with Angelo during her visits with her daughter. The order required Jamie to continue treatment with her psychiatrist, to stay on her medications and to stay cl ean and not use any illegal drug s. The California juvenile court in this case interprete d the UCCJEA as requiring it to confirm that there are no pending cases regarding the child in the home state jurisdic tion and that if, after that inquiry is made, the other court does not assert jurisdiction an d no parent or other individual files an action in the other state, then the California court may proceed. The court indicated that if one of the parents filed a proceeding in another state, then the UCCJEA inquiry would be raised again. No party objected.8 home. Jamie asked that she be allowed to move into the home with Joseph or that the child be placed with the c ousin. Because Angelo reque sted custody, the Agency requested an expedited evaluation of Angelo's home pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC ). (Fam. Code, § 7901 et seq.).
IV. Contested Disposition Hearings 6
A. While Jamie participated in services fo r several months, Jamie sent a number of concerning text messages in April 2013 indicating she intende d to kill herself. In May, she moved back to Las Vegas, Nevada. Sh e now hoped Joseph would be placed with Angelo. In a May home interview, a Nevada soci al worker reported that Angelo initially stated he had been sober since 2010, but then admitted to drinking at least a "six-pack a week." The social worker also observed that he appeared anxious and exhibited symptoms similar to withdrawal symptoms , such as tics and sweating profusely.
B. When the contested dispos ition hearing procee ded in June 2013, Angelo admitted he had three convictions for driving under th e influence (DUI) in the 1990's, the third being a felony. In 2002 his probation was revoked after he tested positive for methamphetamine and he served 16 months in prison.

6 The contested disposition h earing was continued several times to obtain an ICPC report from Nevada of Angelo's home.9 He claimed he went to a voluntary trea tment program for 28 days when he worked for a commercial airline in Texas. He also said he participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, but he stoppe d attending AA meetings in 2 005 claiming he had not had anything to drink for eight years. He was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI in Las Vegas in 2009. He claimed he had his grandmother's prescripti on pain medicine when he was pulled over. However, he obtained the DUI after he tested positive for ma rijuana. He was plac ed on a three-year probation, which agai n required classes. Angelo admitted he told the Nevada social worker that he drinks "a six-pack a week." He testified, however, that he only drinks three or four drinks when he goes to karaoke. He denies drinking and driving and denies that he drinks when the children are around. During the same inte rview in Nevada, Angelo reporte d for the first time that he had been treated for bipolar di sorder and last took medicati on for that condition in 2004. Angelo was arrested for do mestic violence with Jamie in 2010 in which they both claimed to be the victim. Angelo was also arrested following the altercation with his brother in March 2011. He pleaded to a lesser charge and paid a fine. Angelo asked the court to place Jose ph with him arguing th at he did not do anything wrong to have Joseph kept from him. He believed he was in the best position to take care of Joseph and he has a support syst em. If given custody of Joseph, he could bring Joseph to work with hi m at his mother's real estate office, where other relatives would care for him or he would put Joseph in daycare.10 Angelo testified that if Joseph was plac ed in his care, he would be willing to refrain from the use of alcohol or controlled substances, participate in AA or Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings and partic ipate in random drug testing. Angelo was aware that Jamie moved back to Nevada and he ha d no problem with Jamie having visits. Angelo te stified he speaks to Jamie all the time by phone or by text. He socialized with her since sh e returned to Nevada. She ha s a job and he helped her out with a place to stay. Angelo planned to go to Texas during the summer to st ay with his ex-wife and Joseph's half-brother and two half-sisters wh ile the kids were out of school. He also wanted to assist his daughter, who has cerebr al palsy, after a scheduled surgery. He denied that there would be an y domestic violence issues between him and his ex-wife. The court found it would be detrimental to place Joseph with Jamie. While Jamie did actively participate in voluntary servic es, the court was concerned that she moved back to Las Vegas and removed herself from services and assi stance. The court was also concerned about the suic ide threats, which suggested Jamie was not able to provide stable and protective care for her child. The court also found it would be detrimen tal to place Joseph with Angelo at the time, but requested additional information to consider Angelo's placement request. The court based its finding on Angelo 's significant substance abus e history including a series of DUI's that the court described as "very troubling and clearly escalating." The court also found detrim ent based upon Angelo's hist ory of domestic violence with Jamie, including an incident of violence in the presence of a child. The court stated,11 "What is particularly concerning to the cour t is what I assessed, after having watched father on the stand, is his lack of insight of his role in terms of the domestic violence. The reports before the court are quite cl ear. Father blanketly denies—and I have concerns about his credibility at this point—tha t he was ever physical with mother, that he hit mother, although, she had very signific ant bruising, and reported on more than one occasion that father had been violent towards her. [¶] Father's a ssessment of this was that he was, essentially, the victim at all tim es, and would, essentially, allow her back in . . . his life. The reason I find this troub ling as to the question of placement today of Joseph with the father is that nothing has been addressed with respect to father's view of domestic violence. [¶] And while he gave the court some explanations . . . generally how domestic violence can impact a child, he does not seem to have an awareness about protecting himself and his role in terms of protecting Joseph. [¶] Moreover, the court also has concerns about the fa ther's ability to accu rately assess mother's situation. And even when he thinks that she is in a mental health crisis, he continues to engage with her." The court was also concerned that Jamie and Angelo were now living in proximity to each other again and were communicating. The court concluded it had real concerns, "based on the record be fore me today, that there is not a protective system in place such that Joseph could be put with father, can be protected from domestic violence, verbal and otherwise between the parents." The court ordered Angelo be drug tested, he enroll in a domestic violence program, and his case plan include a full s ubstance abuse assessment. The court also12 wanted additional information about services available to Jamie and what services might be available to Angelo in Texas if he went there for an extended visit. The court continued the disposition hearing fo r this additional information.
C. Prior to the next hearing, Jamie submitted information indicating she was accessing services in Nevada, she was no longe r homeless, and she had a weekly income. The social worker noted that, based on re cent telephone conversations, Jamie's mental health appeared to be stabiliz ed. She was more lucid and ro utinely expressed interest in Joseph's well being. The social worker, however, wanted to speak with Jamie's psychiatrist before recommending unsupervised visits. Angelo completed a chemical dependency assessment in Texas, which indicated he meets the criteria for dependence, but that he is in sustained remission. He also submitted to random drug testi ng, which was negative. Ange lo was enrolled in, but had not yet started, a domestic violence progra m in Texas. The Nevada report made the home study contingent on completion of a drug and alcohol evaluation, a mental health evaluation and proof of employment.
D. At the continued hearing on July 23, 20 13, Angelo was living in Texas with his ex-wife and their children. He was getting pa id by Texas to act as a caregiver for his special needs daughter. While he and his ex -wife were discussing getting back together, there were no immediate plans for reunification.13 Jamie now opposed placement with Angelo because he was not living in Nevada and she was concerned that Angelo needed to obtain the servic es recommended by the Agency. She also requested reun ification services with Joseph. The court denied Angelo's request for re consideration of the detriment finding. While the court commended Angelo for the steps he had taken, the court indicated that the same concerns existed as they did at th e contested jurisdiction hearing and the court wanted a completed ICPC evaluation. The c ourt also wanted confirmation of attendance at AA or NA meetings, as well as alcohol and drug testing and reports regarding his domestic violence treatment. The court granted Angelo an extended vis it with Joseph so that he could spend vacation time with his half-siblings and could visit relatives, including his mother in Las Vegas. The court ordered that Joseph's visit with his mother be su pervised by someone other than Angelo. The court reiterated its findings for removing Joseph from Jamie and making a detriment finding as to Angelo. The court orde red the Agency to prep are a case plan for Angelo and an ICPC for Jamie.
DISCUSSION
I. Substantial Evidence Support s the Jurisdictional Finding
A. "A dependency proceeding under sec tion 300 is essentially a bifurcated proceeding. The court first determines whethe r the minor is a dependent child subject to14 the jurisdiction of the court with in the description set out in section 300. . . . [¶] Once the court has determined the minor is a pe rson described by secti on 300 and has assumed jurisdiction it 'shall then pr oceed to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor . . . .' (§ 356.) . . . Before a dispositional order which awards custody to a nonparent without the co nsent of the parents can be rendered, there must be a clear and convincing showing an aw ard to the parents would be detrimental to the child and that an award of custody to a nonparent is essential to avert harm to the child and required to serve the be st interests of the child." ( In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 535, italics omitted.) At the jurisdiction phase, under section 355, subdivision (a), the Agency is required to " 'prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child who is the subject of a petition comes under the juven ile court's jurisdiction.' " ( In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379.) "The basic question under section 300 is whether circumstances at the time of the hearing subjec t the minor to the defined risk of harm." ( In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1134 .) For the court to exercise jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be "evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." ( In re
Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) "On appeal, the 'substantial ev idence' test is the appropri ate standard of review for both the jurisdictional and di spositional findings. [Citations .] The term 'substantial evidence' means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is evidence which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid15 value." ( In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 14 26, 1433.) "It is the trial court's role to assess the credibility of the various witnesse s, to weigh the evid ence to resolve the conflicts in the evidence. We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to cons ider the credibility of witnesse s or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or the reasonabl e inferences which may be drawn from that evidence. [Citations.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we must accep t the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discar d the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact." ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
B. Angelo argues on appeal that there wa s no substantial evidence to support the jurisdictional finding that he was unable to pr otect and supervise Jose ph. Angelo did not raise this argument before the juvenile court. Instead, at the jurisdiction hearing, his counsel merely requested that the petition be amended to st rike the word "failed" from the petition, arguing that he did make a re port once he learned Jo seph had been taken from Nevada. The court amended the petition as requested leaving the allegations that Angelo had been unable to protect and supe rvise Joseph. The court sustained the petition and made a true finding of jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b). Angelo's acquiescence waived his right to claim erro r as a basis for reve rsal on appeal. ( In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 ["It is well settled that attacks on the legal sufficiency of a petition cannot be made for the first time on appeal"]; see also In re Marriage of
Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002 [" 'An appellate court will ordinarily not16 consider procedural defects or erroneous ruli ngs . . . where an objec tion could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method. [Citations.]' [Citation.] Failure to object to the ruling or proceeding is the most obvious type of implied waiver"].) Even if Angelo did not forfeit the right to challenge the suffici ency of the evidence regarding jurisdiction, he cannot prevail on such a claim. The purpose of dependency proceedings is to protect childre n, not to punish the parents. "Therefore, the court takes jurisdiction over children (§ 300); it does not take jurisdiction over parents. Moreover, the court has jurisdiction over the children if the actions of either parent bring the child within one of the statutory definitions in section 300. [Citation.] The court gains jurisdiction over a parent when the parent is properly noticed. [Citation.]" ( In re Joshua
G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 202, italics added.) In this case, Angelo does not dispute that the Agency properly sought detention of Joseph when Jamie was in a state of distress. At the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the court had information regarding Jamie's unresolved mental hea lth issues as well as her history of substance abuse and domestic violence charges. This alone was sufficient for the court to take jurisd iction over the child. In addition, however, there was evidence that Angelo was unable to protect or supervise Joseph. Jamie's reports of domes tic violence at the hands of Angelo were confirmed by police reports, an d an order from another c ourt prohibiting Angelo from having contact with Jamie during visits w ith her daughter. Add itionally, the Agency expressed concern about placement with Angelo due to his criminal history.17 Angelo argues that he "took appropriat e steps when mother left the state with Joseph" by filing a report with child welfar e officials in Nevada in December and by "refus[ing] to continue his re lationship with mother, due to her behavior." However, as the court pointed out, there is no indication that Angelo intervened to care for or protect Joseph during the months that Jamie and Jo seph were homeless in Nevada when they were bouncing from house to house. It also does not appear that Angelo came to see the child until March 2013, months after he was detained. Based upon the record in th is case, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the court's jurisdictional finding.
II. Substantial Evidence Supports th e Court's Dispositional Finding
A. "After the juvenile court finds a child to be within its jurisdic tion, the court must conduct a dispositional hearing. [Citation.] At the dispositional hearing, the court must decide where the child w ill live while under the co urt's supervision." ( In re N.M., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 169.) "A removal orde r is proper if based on proof of a parental inability to provide pr oper care for the child and proof of a potential detriment to the child if he or she remains with the parent. [Citation.] 'The parent need not be dangerous and the minor need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate. The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.' [Citation.] The court may consider a parent's past conduct as well as present circumstances." ( Id. at pp. 169-170.)18 "Before the court issues a removal orde r, it must find the child's welfare requires removal because of a substantial danger, or risk of danger, to the child's physical health if he or she is returned home, and there are no reasonable alternatives to protect the child. [Citations.] There must be clear and convinci ng evidence that removal is the only way to protect the child." ( In re N.M. , supra , 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.) While the parents emphasize the requirement for the juvenile court to find "clear and convincing" evidence of detriment before ordering removal at a disposition hearing, this is not the standard applie d on appeal. We again apply th e substantial evidence rule to review the court's factual determination rega rding disposition. As we have explained, " 'on appeal from a judgment required to be based upon clear and convincing evidence, "the clear and convincing test disappears . . . [and] the usual rule of conflicting evidence is applied, giving full effect to the re spondent's evidence, however slight, and disregarding the appellant's evidence, however strong." [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'We have no power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weig h the eviden ce [or] to consider the credibility of witnesses . . . .' " ( In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 580-581, fn. omitted.) As with the jurisdiction finding, the ev idence supports the disposition finding. The record shows that the court carefully consider ed the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witne sses in making its determination that it would be detrimental to place Joseph with either parent at the time. We agree with the juvenile court that it is commendable that both parents have accessed servic es and appear to be making strides to19 improve their situations. However, at the ti me of the disposition he arings, the court had serious ongoing concerns about th e ability of either parent to protect and care for Joseph.
B. Unlike in Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1751, where a therapist had only vague con cerns about parenting insights , in this case Jamie has a documented mental illness that requires medica tion and treatment. While she did seek treatment, she left California without co mpleting that treatment and her therapist expressed concern about her mental health and the ability for her to provide a safe residence for Joseph. This al ong with the fact that she se nt a series of suicide notes before moving back to Nevada was substantia l evidence to support the court's conclusion that Jamie was significantly unst able to provide stable and protective care for Joseph at the time. The fact that Jamie has since acces sed care in Nevada and appears to have had some success in stabilizing her mental health is positive and may lead to reunification, but that issue is not before us.
C. With regard to Angelo, the court ackn owledged that under section 361.2 it was required to consider placement with him as the noncustodial pare nt unless it found by clear and convincing evidence that placement with that parent would be "detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." ( In re Marquis
D. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1829.) The court made this finding and it is supported by substantial evidence.20 The record supports the court's concern about Angelo's long history of substance abuse, going back to his teens, and depende ncy upon multiple substances, which led to criminal behavior and interfered with his abi lity to maintain employment. The court had justifiable concerns that even after three DUI convictions, Angelo violated his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. Th en, after serving time in prison for the violation, he again tested po sitive for driving under the infl uence of marijuana. While Angelo claims he has been sober since 2010, he disclosed to a Nevada social worker that he still engages in social drinking every week while playing games or going to bars. The Legislature recognizes that providing children with "a home environment free from the negative effects of substance abus e is a necessary cond ition for the safety, protection and physical and emoti onal well-being of the child." (§ 300.2.) It is for this reason that the court properly required Angelo to participate in a complete substance abuse assessment as well as drug and al cohol testing and documentation of his participation in AA and NA meetings. The record also supports the court's finding based u pon concerns about domestic violence. While Angelo sugg ested that the incidents of domestic violence with Jamie were due to her mental health issues and that he was the victim, the court did not find his testimony credible. Even if his testimony we re to be believed, the court found it troubling that Angelo would c ontinue to engage with Jamie, particularly while he is seeking placement of the child. In addition, there wa s evidence that Ange lo's ex-wife left him after an incident where Angelo became ph ysical and it scared her enough to call the21 police. At the time of the continued dispositio n hearing in July 2013, Angelo had not yet started a domestic violence program. Under these circumstances, the court pr operly found detriment to place with Angelo and ordered him to address both th e domestic violence and substance abuse issues.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

M C CONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

M C DONALD, J.

IRION, J.