Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. Alberto C. (In Re I.C.), 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712

A dependency petition alleged that Father sexually molested his then‑3‑year‑old daughter I.C.; the juvenile court admitted and relied solely on I.C.’s out‑of‑court statements (videotaped CALICO interview, daycare and mother reports) to find jurisdiction and ordered Father removed from the home.
I.C. had been sexually molested about two months earlier by an 8‑year‑old neighbor (Oscar); family discussed that incident repeatedly and I.C. unexpectedly encountered Oscar again days before she first reported abuse by Father.
I.C.’s accounts to multiple interviewers repeatedly asserted Father “put his penis on me,” but also included confusing or fantastical details (trains, flowers, multiple participants, false statements about her morning activities).
Medical and forensic examinations were inconclusive; Father and Mother both denied (Mother said she did not believe it), and Father’s adult daughter denied any abuse.
Juvenile court found the statements sufficiently reliable despite inconsistencies and based jurisdiction solely on the child’s hearsay; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the record did not support a finding that the child’s hearsay bore the special indicia of reliability required by Lucero L.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile court may rely solely on a truth‑incompetent child’s uncorroborated hearsay to find jurisdiction	Agency: Lucero L. permits reliance where the child’s statements show special indicia of reliability; the juvenile court so found here (spontaneity, consistent core allegation, gestures)	Father: The child’s statements lacked the special indicia of reliability given recent prior molestation, numerous inconsistencies, fantasy statements, and no corroboration	Court: Lucero L. requires special indicia of reliability; here the record as a whole did not supply substantial evidence of those indicia, so jurisdiction based solely on the hearsay was erroneous.
Standard of review for a Lucero L. reliability finding	Agency: Defer to juvenile court’s credibility assessment and videotape viewing under substantial‑evidence review	Father: The record must be considered as a whole; appellate review can determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding of special indicia of reliability	Court: Substantial‑evidence review applies but requires considering the whole record; here deference was not justified because indications of unreliability outweighed reliability.

In re Cindy L., 17 Cal.4th 15 (Cal. 1997) (child hearsay admissible in dependency proceedings only if time, content, and circumstances provide sufficient indicia of reliability)
In re Lucero L., 22 Cal.4th 1227 (Cal. 2000) (statutory admission of social‑study hearsay; reliance solely on hearsay of truth‑incompetent child permissible only if special indicia of reliability)
In re Malinda S., 51 Cal.3d 368 (Cal. 1990) (authorized consideration of social‑study hearsay in dependency proceedings)
Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (factors for assessing reliability of child hearsay; quoted in Lucero L.)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial hearsay)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (U.S. 2015) (statements by very young children about abuse rarely implicate Confrontation Clause)
In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (dependency adjudication as preliminary protection step)