State statutes governing dependency proceedings are set out generally in Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 et seq. Dependency proceedings are special proceedings traditionally viewed as being governed by their own set of rules and statutes.
Because of the parents' work schedules, they left their minor child at the home of the paternal grandfather and the paternal great aunt. On a Wednesday in March 2011, the grandfather, who had been home alone with eight-month-old took her to a hospital. When she arrived, she was limp, pale, and nonresponsive. CPR was administered and she was transferred to Rady Children's Hospital, where testing "showed presence of a right subdural hematoma which was mixed density, acute or acute and chronic," and bilateral retinol hemorrhages "most consistent with subacute."
The parents told the attending physician that the child was healthy when they left her with the grandfather the previous day and they were unaware of any traumatic event. The parents reported that the grandfather told them he walked away from the child when she was lying down drinking a bottle. He heard her begin to choke and returned to her, finding her limp.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency took the child into protective custody and filed a petition on her behalf under section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleges that the child's injuries "would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions of the parents of the child and there is substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm or illness." (See § 355.1, subd. (a).)
"Before courts and agencies can exert jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness." (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)
The parents contend that the child's injuries were either accidental or the grandfather caused them. They assert the evidence is insufficient because the Agency failed to prove they neglected or inadequately supervised the child, or that they had reason to suspect she may be in danger at the home of the grandfather and the aunt.
The Court was not persuade, and ruled that removal from the home was the only reasonable means of protecting the minor child who had unexplained symptoms of having been shaken.
The dependency system has traditionally be viewed as having three primary goals for each child made a dependent of the juvenile court: (1) the safety and protection of the child; (2) the preservation of the family, if it can be done safely and in a timely manner; and (3) the timely provision of a stable, permanent home for the child. Underlying these three is the fundamental goal of serving the child's best interests.
The first and foremost goal of the dependency system is to protect children who have been seriously abused, neglected or abandoned or who are at substantial risk of being so abused or neglected. To this end, the legislature has declared that in providing for a statewide system of child welfare services it believes all children "are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect" [Welf. & Inst. Code § 16500; see also Welf. & Inst. Code § 396 ("children have a right to a normal home life free from abuse")]. Thus, the safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being of dependent children is the primary goal of the dependency system.
If you have a family law issue, contact our office online or by calling 707-623-1875 to schedule a free initial 1/2 hour consultation. We serve clients throughout the North Bay area of California, including Sonoma County, Mendocino County, Lake County, Santa Rosa, Napa, Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Sonoma, Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Windsor, Bodega Bay, Ukiah, Willits, Clearlake, Lakeport and Kelseyville.
