In re Mateo S. CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2026B342048California5,787 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court dismissed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition as to minor Mateo S. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) appeals, contending the juvenile court erred by not finding section 355.1’s rebuttable presumption applicable and “erred in supplanting its own opinions for that of the competent medical professionals.” We find the juvenile court did not err and affirm the order of dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Referral and Investigation On October 5, 2024, DCFS received a referral alleging physical abuse of two-month-old Mateo. The night before, at 9:55 p.m., Mateo was brought to the hospital by 22-year-old Destiny S. (Mother), 24-year-old Javier R. (Father), and maternal grandmother (MGM), with a possible injury to Mateo’s right arm. Dr. Sarah Richards and SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) specialist Dr. Andrea Kablanian examined Mateo and found “multiple, unexplained bruises”—“a bruise on the right side of his jaw line, two bruises on his upper right posterior shoulder, two bruises on his mid back, a bruise on his right hip, and a bruise on his right upper buttock, right below…

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.