Is a mother's surprise at her father's arrest for possession of a bindle of methamphetamine consistent with his past substance abuse history?

indeed, her surprise at his arrest shows why her lack of knowledge of his current drug habit carries little or no meaning. Likewise, father's denial that the bindle of methamphetamine was his is not inconsistent with him using methamphetamine, particularly when he acknowledged the pipe he possessed was his and was used to smoke methamphetamine. Finally, while father's denial of any substance abuse history might otherwise constitute evidence that he does not abuse methamphetamine, in context, a single, self-serving statement cannot support a contrary finding in light of the entire record indicating father abuses methamphetamine, including unimpeached statements of family members and father himself, as well as father's uncontroverted possession of methamphetamine and a pipe used to smoke it. (See Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 652 ["The ultimate test is whether it is reasonable for a trier of fact to make the ruling in question in light of the whole record. [Citation] A formulation of the substantial evidence rule which stresses the importance of isolated evidence supporting the judgment, . . . risks misleading the court into abdicating its duty to appraise the whole record"] (internal quotation mark omitted).)