In re D.G. CA4/1, D078326

Background

S.G., a 13-year-old adopted child with autism and medical/developmental issues, died after going into cardiac arrest; autopsy and expert review showed extreme undernourishment (about 37 pounds) and prolonged lack of medical care.
Mother had declined conventional medical and dental care for the children for years, preferring homeopathic/naturopathic care; the family had not obtained medical or developmental services in California for at least three years.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed dependency petitions under Welfare & Institutions Code §300(f) alleging the parents caused S.G.’s death through neglect, and sought juvenile-court jurisdiction over the living children (D.G., I.G., K.G.).
At a multi-day contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing the juvenile court declined to sustain the §300(f) count (insufficient proof that death was caused by the parents’ neglect) but gave parties notice it might conform pleadings to proof and considered jurisdiction under §300(b).
The court ultimately conformed the petitions to §300(b), found the Minors at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to Mother’s prolonged medical neglect and ongoing aversion to conventional care, assumed jurisdiction, placed the Minors with parents under family maintenance, and ordered services.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Mother’s due-process and insufficiency of evidence claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conforming the §300(f) petitions to §300(b) and assuming jurisdiction violated Mother’s due process rights	Mother: court deprived her of notice and acted as advocate/trier by conforming to different theory without adequate notice	Agency/Court: amendment to conform to proof permitted under §348/variance rules; parties were notified and had opportunity to contest	No due-process violation — court provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard; Mother forfeited any claim court acted as advocate by not objecting below
Whether there was substantial evidence to support jurisdiction under §300(b) (substantial risk of serious physical harm due to neglect)	Mother/D.G./I.G.: Minors were generally healthy at hearing; only minor ailments being addressed, so no substantial current risk	Agency: Mother’s prolonged failure to obtain medical care for S.G., failure to seek help when he was dying, and continuing extreme aversion to conventional medical care create substantial risk to the living children	Substantial evidence supported §300(b) jurisdiction — the magnitude of harm (possible death/failure to thrive) plus past conduct and ongoing medical aversion justified finding of substantial risk
Whether §300(f) was established	Agency initially pleaded §300(f) but conceded evidence was equivocal on causation of death	Mother: disputed causation and sufficiency	Court declined to sustain §300(f) — evidence was too murky to conclude death was caused by parental neglect

Key Cases Cited

In re M.C., 199 Cal.App.4th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (overview of dependency scheme and petition practice)
In re Jessica C., 93 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (amendments to conform to proof in dependency proceedings)
In re Andrew L., 192 Cal.App.4th 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (variance/amendment rules applied to juvenile petitions)
In re Wilford J., 131 Cal.App.4th 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (due process/notice requirements in juvenile hearings)
In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (legislative rationale for §300(f) child-fatality petitions)
In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2013) (assessing substantial risk requires weighing probability and magnitude of harm)
In re J.M., 40 Cal.App.5th 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (court need not wait until serious injury to assert jurisdiction)
In re Petra B., 216 Cal.App.3d 1163 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (parents’ confusion about medical treatment probative of current danger)
In re John M., 212 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (past parental conduct can be probative of future risk)