In re S.R., 48 Cal. App. 5th 204

Ten-year-old S.R. became a dependent after DCFS filed a petition alleging father Justin R. created an endangering home environment by possessing child pornography on a laptop and external hard drive kept in the family home.
Police seized devices showing hundreds of child-pornography images and videos (≈614 images and 54 videos on the hard drive; ≈192 images on the laptop), including prepubescent victims and filenames suggesting incestuous father-daughter content; an uploaded Tumblr video implicated Justin’s IP address.
Justin pleaded nolo contendere in criminal court to possession under Penal Code §311.11(c)(1); sentence included probation, 52-week sex-offender counseling and a ban on contact with minors except his own.
At the juvenile adjudication/disposition hearing the court admitted expert evidence: Dr. Crespo (opined substantial risk referencing the Butner study) and Dr. Malinek (psychological/risk assessment concluding low actuarial risk—CPORT score 1—but recommending treatment and monitoring).
The juvenile court sustained jurisdiction (§300(b), (d)), found clear and convincing evidence removal was necessary under §361(c) (substantial danger/substantial risk of sexual abuse), removed S.R. from Justin’s custody, authorized monitored visits, and ordered sex-offender counseling. Justin appealed the dispositional removal; jurisdictional challenge was forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported removal under §361(c) for substantial danger/substantial risk of sexual abuse	DCFS: conviction, contents of files (prepubescent victims and incest‑titled file), expert opinion and statutory inferences show a substantial risk to S.R.	Justin: mere possession of child pornography does not prove he poses a substantial risk of hands‑on abuse to his daughter	Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports removal; even a low probability can be substantial given the potentially great harm (citing I.J.)
Effect of criminal conviction and §355.1(d) presumption	DCFS: criminal sexual‑abuse conviction is prima facie evidence that the child is at substantial risk	Justin: he rebutted the presumption with expert evidence showing low risk	Court: presumption may be rebutted but the conviction and reasonable inferences remain admissible and probative; the court may consider them without the presumption’s burden shift
Admissibility/weight of expert evidence (Butner study, Crespo testimony)	DCFS: expert opinion and studies support inference of risk	Justin: challenged Crespo’s qualifications, methodology, and reliance on Butner; emphasized Malinek’s low‑risk opinion	Court admitted the evidence and credited parts of both experts; credibility and weight are for the trial court to resolve; no reversal on admissibility or weight

In re I.J., 56 Cal.4th 766 (explains that a low probability can still constitute a substantial risk when the potential harm is great)
In re P.A., 144 Cal.App.4th 1339 (court may consider a parent’s sex‑offense conviction and reasonable inferences despite rebuttal of statutory presumption)
Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.4th 149 (legislative intent behind evidentiary presumption concerning parent sex crimes and child risk)
In re Quentin, 230 Cal.App.4th 608 (once a statutory presumption is rebutted, the underlying fact and reasonable inferences remain for the factfinder)
In re Ulysses D., 121 Cal.App.4th 1092 (discusses the statutory scope of sexual‑abuse definitions relevant to dependency jurisdiction)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (frames the clear‑and‑convincing standard in parental‑rights/dependency contexts)
In re Anthony Q., 5 Cal.App.5th 336 (describes §361(c) as a limit on removing a child from a parent after dependency jurisdiction is invoked)
In re J.F., 39 Cal.App.5th 70 (appellate waiver principles when jurisdictional claims are not properly raised)