In re Carmen M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 478, concerned a minor, Carmen, who was declared a dependent child and placed in a group home. The juvenile court ordered Carmen to submit to a drug test if the group home staff believed her to be under the influence of drugs. (Id. at p. 485.) Carmen objected that the court had no discretion to make the order and that it violated her fundamental right to privacy. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court noted provisions in the Welfare and Institutions Code that authorize the court to make all reasonable orders for the care and supervision of a dependent child, and direct the court to secure custody, care, and discipline for the child as close as possible to that he or she should have received from parents. (Id. at p. 486, citing 202, subd. (a), 362, subd. (a).) The court indicated these provisions were broad and comprehensive enough to include an order "for continued drug testing of a dependent child who has admitted a substance abuse problem." (Id. at p. 486.) The court further determined that a properly limited court order for drug testing does not violate a dependent child's fundamental right of privacy. Although the child's privacy rights are implicated, the court reasoned that a minor's right to privacy "differs significantly from the rights enjoyed by adults. Thus, in most instances a parent has the legal right to act on behalf of his or her child, including authorizing a medical procedure or test, to protect the child's health and well-being." (Carmen M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 492-493.) When a child becomes a dependent of the court, the juvenile court assumes the parent's role, "as well as the parent's authority to limit the child's freedom of action." (Id. at p. 494.) The court noted that Carmen had a recent history of drug abuse and responded well to drug treatment programs. Continued testing promised to be a "constructive tool for her continued sobriety. . . . In view of the specific and documented justification for the order for continued drug testing and the express condition that testing occur only if there is a reasonable suspicion Carmen M. has been using drugs, we are persuaded the juvenile court's legitimate interest in closely monitoring Carmen M.'s recovery fully supports the order's limited intrusion on Carmen M.'s right to privacy." (Carmen M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 494.) In Carmen M., the court discussed the concerns that arise when a drug testing order of a dependent child does not contain "express limitations or guidelines . . . as to the type of test to be conducted (for example, blood or urine), the manner of administering the test or the scope of disclosure of test results." (Carmen M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 494-495.) The court noted that "the use of highly invasive procedures that unnecessarily disregard the child's privacy interests when less intrusive alternatives are feasible weighs heavily in any state constitutional privacy case." (Id. at p. 495.) In Carmen M., the juvenile court's order contained implicit direction that testing be conducted in the manner it had been before at Carmen M.'s treatment facility, and which she had not challenged. However, the Court of Appeal suggested that "in general any such order requiring drug testing of a dependent child should provide for the least intrusive, reliable method of testing and shield test results and other sensitive personal information from unnecessary disclosure, consistent with the purpose for which testing has been ordered." (Id. at p. 496.)