Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Diamond P.
225 Cal. App. 4th 898
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- D.P., born May 2011, sustained significant head trauma and bite-mark-like wounds discovered after a two-week stay with mother; medical reviewers concluded trauma was nonaccidental and bites consistent with adult bites.
- Father noticed bruises, scabs, and a swollen eye when mother dropped off D.P.; police and hospital were involved and doctors opined injury likely inflicted.
- Mother denied knowing how the injuries occurred, suggested other children bit D.P. at a party, and later speculated D.P. hit her head on a car seat; mother did not offer a plausible accidental explanation.
- Department of Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition (subds. (a) and (b)); child was detained and placed with father.
- Juvenile court sustained jurisdiction under section 300(a) and (b) and ordered services; mother appealed only the (a) finding that injury was nonaccidentally inflicted by parent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §300(a) that mother nonaccidentally inflicted serious physical harm | The medical evidence of nonaccidental trauma and adult bite marks plus mother’s failure to offer a plausible explanation supports finding mother inflicted injuries | Mother argued there was no substantial evidence she inflicted injuries or posed risk; she denied knowledge and suggested other children caused marks | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported §300(a); nondisclosure and medical opinions supported inference mother was responsible |
| Whether application of the presumption under §355.1 violated due process/notice | Department relied on petition language mirroring §355.1; mother had counsel and received adequate notice of reliance on that presumption | Mother contended she lacked notice that §355.1 would be invoked and that evidence rebutted the presumption | Court held notice was adequate because petition used §355.1 language; any error in applying presumption was harmless because evidence supported jurisdiction regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- In re David M., 134 Cal.App.4th 822 (standard of appellate review for juvenile court jurisdiction)
- In re Yvonne W., 165 Cal.App.4th 1394 (definition of substantial evidence in dependency review)
- In re Ashley B., 202 Cal.App.4th 968 (one sufficient jurisdictional finding can sustain dependency)
- In re Alexis E., 171 Cal.App.4th 438 (appellate affirmation of jurisdiction if any alleged statutory basis has substantial evidence)
- In re D.C., 195 Cal.App.4th 1010 (appellate courts may address merits of challenged jurisdictional findings that could prejudice appellant)
- In re James B., 166 Cal.App.3d 934 (presumption under §355.1 shifts burden of producing evidence to parents)
- In re A.S., 202 Cal.App.4th 237 (discussion that petition should explicitly cite §355.1 to give clear notice)
- In re Katrina C., 201 Cal.App.3d 540 (presumption disappears on contrary evidence but trier of fact weighs professional testimony against rebuttal)