CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Dependency With Removal
............Grounds for Removal
 26 Cards On This Topic:
  • Clear and convincing evidence is standard for removal of dependent child from parents or guardians based on one of 5 criteria.
  • Juvenile court erred when it removed child from parent's custody under W&IC §361(c) when child did not reside with parent; error rendered harmless as §361(a) and §362(a) provided court with broad removal authority.
  • In light of mother's failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing C by her alcohol and drug use, no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should C remain in her home, and removal order proper.
  • Removal findings re F not supported by substantial evidence where F had already moved out, C was no longer in his physical custody, and C remained in the home with mother; error harmless.
  • Court should have considered noncustodial mother's request for custody under W&IC 361.2(a), even if there was a detriment finding in a prior dependency case and she did not retain physical custody; error here nonprejudicial.
  • Substantial evidence supported finding son would be at substantial risk of harm if returned to mother's custody where she refused to believe F had sexually abused daughter and violated no-contact order between F and children.
  • Although trial court erred in terminating jurisdiction without making express W&IC 361.2 finding, no reasonable probability it would have reached a different result in the absence of the error.
  • W&IC 361(c)(6) finding, and supporting expert testimony, is ••not•• required in dependency proceeding when Indian C removed from one parent and placed with the other.
  • Sufficient evidence supported risk of emotional harm to Cs in removal findings under W&IC 361 (c) in dependency case following bitter divorce.
  • In postremoval placement, detriment finding can properly be supported by emotional harm arising from the loss of sibling relationships even absent noncustodial parent's contribution to detriment.
  • Juvenile ct. erred in making nonstatutory disposition by placing Ms with DSS but detaining them with parents; authority cannot be conferred by consent.
  • As F’s psychological evaluation, ordered by court as condition of reunification, already completed at time of appeal, issue moot.
  • Although mother and M bonded, evidence showed mother’s emotional instability, substance abuse and combative behavior presented substantial risk of danger to M.
  • Mere messiness in housekeeping is not clear and convincing evidence of substantial risk of harm justifying child’s removal.
  • Finding of detriment must be supported by clear and convincing evidence—will not be implied.
  • Clear and convincing evidence standard not satisfied where child removed from mother’s custody solely on father’s violent conduct to child’s half-brother.
  • Factors involved in deciding whether to remove dependent child from parents’ custody.
  • At dispositional hearing, parent must be given physical custody unless plan poses substantial danger to physical health of child.
  • Removal requires clear and convincing evidence of parental inability to provide proper care for the child.
  • Spanking and harsh words insufficient to support the finding of physical and emotional abuse underlying permanent removal order.
  • Dependency finding reversed because no reason to believe acts of abuse would continue.
  • Dependency finding upheld where mother given custody and potential danger existed of abusive boyfriend returning.
  • Insufficient evidence to support removal and substance abuse testing for parents; error to admit incompetent minor’s social study comments.
  • Evidence of injuries to minor, condition of home and behavior of parents supports finding declaring minors dependent children of court and out of home placement.
  • At dispositional hearing, parent must be given physical custody unless plan poses substantial danger to physical health of child.
  • Interrelationship of juvenile court jurisdiction and family law court jurisdiction.


    •