Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 361
(a)
(1) In all cases in which a minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the minor is a person described by Section 300, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and shall by its order clearly and specifically set forth all those limitations. Any limitation on the right of the parent, guardian, or Indian custodian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. The limitations may not exceed those necessary to protect the child. If the court specifically limits the right of the parent, guardian, or Indian custodian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child, or, for the nonminor dependent, if the court finds the appointment of a developmental services decisionmaker to be in the best interests of the nonminor dependent, the court shall at the same time appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child or nonminor dependent until one of the following occurs:
(4)
(5)
(b)
(c) A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of their parents, guardian or guardians, or Indian custodian with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, and, where it is known or there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, as defined by Section 224.1, paragraph (6):
(1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s, guardian’s, or Indian custodian’s physical custody. The fact that a minor has been adjudicated a dependent child of the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 300 shall constitute prima facie evidence that the minor cannot be safely left in the physical custody of the parent, guardian, or Indian custodian with whom the minor resided at the time of injury. The court shall consider, as a reasonable means to protect the minor, each of the following:
(6) In an Indian child custody proceeding, continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, and that finding is supported by testimony of a “qualified expert witness” as described in Section 224.6.
(f) The court shall make all of the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 366 in either of the following circumstances: