CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Jurisdictional Hearing
.........Presumptions
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Competent professional evidence that injury sustained by minor ordinarily not sustained except as result of abuse or neglect is presumptive of jurisdiction.
  • W&IC 355.1(d) presumption that
    parent's or other custodian's prior convictions for sexual assault and sex offender registration support dependency jurisdiction.
  • Reversal required where court improperly relied solely on the presumption of current dangerousness, rebutted by F, to sustain dependency allegations, and did not evaluate the totality of the evidence.
  • Substantial evidence did not overcome the W&IC 355.1(d) presumption that F's prior convictions for sex assault on young boys and SVP commitment supported dependency jurisdiction over his 2-yr.-old son.
  • Undisputed evidence of nonaccidental trauma and mother's failure to explain how C was injured in her care was substantial evidence she was responsible for inflicting the injuries; W&IC 355.1 presumption not rebutted.
  • Because F admitted to being registered sex offender and presented no evidence contesting jurisdiction, finding of jurisdiction under W&IC 300(b) and (d) was supported by W&IC 355.1 presumption alone.
  • Under Welf. & Inst. Code §355.1 (d) stepfather's status as registered sex offender was prima facie evidence to support juv. ct. jurisdiction whether or not he was custodial parent.
  • Evidence, including M’s testimony refuting allegation of sexual molestation, insufficient to support finding parents unable to protect children; W&I 355.1 presumption rebutted.
  • Effect of statutory presumption of unfitness from finding of injury of type normally occurring due to abuse or neglect.
  • 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.
  • Pediatrician’s testimony that faint bruise on M’s cheek indicative of abuse rather than discipline was prima facie evidence of M’s need for proper care.
  • Court has duty to take jurisdiction where minor clearly molested, even if identity of perpetrator unknown.


    •