85 Cal.App.5th 857
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In June 2020, 10‑month‑old G.Z. was hospitalized for persistent vomiting; CT/MRI showed bilateral chronic subdural hematomas, a left subacute subdural, an arachnoid cyst, and macrocephaly.
- Mother reported two recent falls (co‑sleeping bed fall ~April; kitchen fall May 23); exams showed no external bruising, retinal hemorrhages, or fractures. Family members corroborated the fall accounts.
- DCFS filed a §300 petition alleging neglect, failure to obtain timely medical care, and non‑accidental trauma; child was initially removed, later placed on a 50/50 custodial plan under supervision.
- Medical experts conflicted: CHLA experts said non‑accidental trauma could not be excluded for older hematomas; Mother’s expert (Dr. Weinraub) testified the arachnoid cyst, macrocephaly, and neomembranes made spontaneous or minor‑trauma bleeds plausible and found no signs of abusive head trauma.
- Juvenile court invoked the §355.1 presumption and sustained count b‑1 (neglect); on appeal the court held the jurisdictional finding lacked substantial evidence and reversed, directing dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Mother’s neglect caused G.Z.’s subdural hematomas under §300(b) | Imaging and clinical history consistent with non‑accidental trauma; Mother’s explanations were inconsistent and injuries occurred while in her care | Medical evidence supports congenital/medical causes (arachnoid cyst, macrocephaly); no external signs of abuse; Mother diligently sought care | Reversed: insufficient substantial evidence to attribute hematomas to Mother’s neglect; experts offered plausible non‑abusive causes and no signs of abusive head trauma |
| Use and notice of §355.1 rebuttable presumption (shifting burden to parents) | Petition language paralleled §355.1; DCFS had provided allegations and medical evidence, so reliance on presumption was permissible | Court relied on §355.1 without prior explicit notice after argument, depriving Mother of due process; presumption was rebutted by defense evidence | Court found petition incorporated §355.1 language (so notice adequate) but Mother produced rebuttal evidence; presumption therefore disappeared and DCFS failed to carry the burden |
| Mootness of appeal after termination of jurisdiction | Post‑disposition termination renders appeal moot | Jurisdictional findings could stigmatize Mother (CACI listing, future family‑law consequences), so appeal remains justiciable | Appeal not moot; potential collateral consequences justified review, so court reached merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Roberto C., 209 Cal.App.4th 1241 (discussing insufficiency of evidence to attribute intracranial injury to parental abuse)
- In re D.P., 225 Cal.App.4th 898 (addressing use and notice of §355.1 presumption)
- In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (holding DCFS should clearly plead reliance on §355.1 to shift production burden)
- In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in dependency jurisdiction)
- In re T.V., 217 Cal.App.4th 126 (reviewing substantial‑evidence analysis in dependency context)
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (reversal of jurisdiction requires vacating related dispositional orders)