San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Mary M., 202 Cal. App. 4th 237

Parents left A.S. with paternal grandfather and great-aunt due to work schedules; A.S. hospitalized with acute/subacute subdural hematoma and bilateral retinal hemorrhages after being in their care; doctors opined injuries were nonaccidental and possibly inflicted recently or up to a week earlier; Agency filed petition under Welfare and Institutions Code §300(b) alleging substantial risk of serious harm; juvenile court removed A.S. from parental custody and ordered supervised visitation with services; appellate record showed trial court relied on nonexpert views and grappled with timing and causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Agency forfeited §355.1(a) reliance.	Agency failed to cite §355.1(a) in petition/hearing.	Forfeiture not waived; evidence supports jurisdiction.	Forfeited; §355.1(a) not properly invoked.
Whether substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b).	Injuries could be caused accidentally; parents not neglectful.	Injuries are nonaccidental; one caretaker could have harmed child.	Substantial evidence supports jurisdiction under §300(b).
Whether substantial evidence supports removal under §361, subdivision (d).	Removal unnecessary; viable alternatives exist (supervision, services).	Given severity and lack of explanation, removal appropriate.	Removal supported by substantial evidence; reasonable alternatives not sufficient.

In re James B., 166 Cal.App.3d 934 (Cal. App. Dist. 1985) (presumption under §355.1(a) and burden shifting)
In re Sheila B., 19 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. App. Dist. 1993) (procedural requirements for applying §355.1(a))
In re E. H., 108 Cal.App.4th 659 (Cal. App. Dist. 2003) (jurisdiction when perpetrator not conclusively identified)
In re Rocco M., 1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. Dist. 1991) (standard for substantial evidence in §300 determinations)