CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Dependency With Removal
............Burden of Proof
 17 Cards On This Topic:
  • Burden of proof for removal of child from parents or guardian is clear and convincing evidence.
  • Though juv. court erred in ordering C's removal from F's physical custody under W&IC 361(c)(1) because C did not live with F when petition filed, F could not show prejudice as court did have the authority under W&IC §361(a) and W&IC §362(a).
  • Where clear and convincing evidence supports removal of one C from mother's physical custody, juv. court may not order removal of other Cs not living with mother at the relevant time. [W&IC §361(c).]
  • Reversal required where there was no substantial evidence of the high level of detriment required under W&IC §361.2(a) to deny placement of C with nonoffending, noncustodial F.
  • Ongoing DV by both parents in front of Cs from 2008 through 2012 is substantial evidence of a substantial danger to Cs' emotional well-being, if not their physical well-being under W&IC 361(c)(1).
  • DCFS and juvenile court erred in failing to follow procedures mandated for determining whether Cs needed to be removed from home b/c of mother's hitting them w/implements—ample evidence existed of "reasonable means" to protect them.
  • Portion of the dispositional order removing sons from F’s legal custody and restricting him to monitored visitation because of prior molestation of his step-daughter was not supported by the evidence and reversed.
  • Mother's and Cs' stmts to authorities were substantial evidence that F sexually abused daughter, physically abused son, and emotionally and physically abused mother and presented substantial risk to both Cs.
  • Order reversed where evidence of parents' mental and substance abuse problems never tied to actual harm to Cs, or to substantial risk of serious harm, and SSA failed to investigate/report on current basis.
  • Out of home placement order reversed where clear and convincing evidence did not support removal and no finding of no reasonable means of protecting child without removal.
  • Dispositional order declining to place C with F not supported, per W&IC 361.2 (a), by finding, based on clear and convincing evidence, that placement of C with F would be detrimental to C's safety, protection, or well-being.
  • Substantial evidence supported court's finding that Cs would suffer detriment if placed away from their siblings with father in Ohio.
  • Social worker's belief about parents' failure to internalize parenting skills and their attitudes toward social service intervention insufficient to support removal under Welf. & Inst. Code §361.
  • Burden of proof is substantially higher at dispositional phase than at jurisdictional phase if child is to be removed from home.
  • There must be clear and convincing evidence of circumstances enumerated under Welf. & Inst. Code §361 to remove minor from parental custody.
  • Clear and convincing evidence, articulated by juvenile court, required to remove child from custodial parent and award child to noncustodial parent.
  • Clear and convincing evidence of parental inability to care for child, resulting in detriment if child remains, is required when removing child from parental custody.


    •