CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Jurisdictional Hearing
.........Jurisdictional Grounds
............300(a): Physical Abuse or Harm
 13 Cards On This Topic:
  • Petition for dependency may be sustained due to physical harm inflicted by parent.
  • Injury due to act or neglect on the part of person who has care of minor; prima facie evidence of neglect.
  • Jurisdictional findings against mother reversed where she took proper actions to protect Cs when F unexpectedly assaulted her by going straight to police and obtaining emergency RO.
  • Order keeping F from family home after one incident of his inappropriately disciplining 3-yr.-old with belt reversed as evidence did not support order and mother affirmed she would not allow it again.
  • W&IC 300(a) applied to C whose parents abused their grandchildren rather than C's "siblings" as a statute should not be given a literal meaning if to do so would create unintended, absurd consequences.
  • Multiple incidents of abuse by F and medical exam. revealing marks on C's body that were consistent with her claims of abuse were substantial evidence to support jurisdictional finding under W&IC 300(a).
  • Father's agreement to negotiated settlement constituted an implied waiver of his right to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional finding under W&IC 300(a).
  • W&IC 300(a) is appropriate when, through exposure to parent's domestic violence, C suffers, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by parent.
  • One incident of sexual abuse 6 yrs. earlier and one of physical abuse 2 yrs. before, along with sufficient other evidence, demonstrated C was at risk of future harm.
  • CCP 430.80 does not apply to juvenile dependency proceedings and mother forfeited her challenge to the facial sufficiency of the petition by failing to raise the issue below.
  • W&IC 300(a) not void for vagueness: because "serious physical harm" has a sufficiently well-established meaning, no further statutory definition required.
  • Substantial evidence supports removal of minors from father’s custody; no standing to challenge statutory provision not relied upon for removal; cultural beliefs re parental discipline discussed.
  • Evidence, including M’s testimony refuting allegation of sexual molestation, insuff. to support finding parents unable to protect children; W&I 355.1 presumption rebutted.


    •