In re Tabitha K. CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2013D063773California1,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rourke, J.

DISCUSSION

I

Deborah challenges the dispositional order, contending the court should have

ordered informal supervision under sections 301 and 360, subdivision (b), instead of

declaring Tabitha a dependent. She asserts there was no evidence at the time of

3 disposition that Tabitha was suffering, or was at risk of suffering, serious physical or

emotional harm or abuse.

A

Section 300, subdivision (b) provides a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction if the

child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk the child will suffer, serious physical harm

or illness as a result of the parent's failure to adequately supervise or protect the child or

provide adequate medical treatment. In enacting section 300, the Legislature intended to

protect children who are currently being abused or neglected, "and to ensure the safety,

protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that

harm." (§ 300.2, italics added.) The court need not wait until a child is seriously abused

or injured to assume jurisdiction and take steps necessary to protect the child. (In re

Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 194-196.) The focus of section 300 is on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.