In Re Antonio A.

Herein we decide that upon timely objection hearsay evidence not subject to an established exception should not be admitted to find true the allegations of a supplemental petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Since the supplemental petition below was sustained solely on the basis of inadmissible hearsay evidence, we reverse.

I. Background

On December 7, 1988, the court declared appellant Antonio A. (hereafter probationer) a ward under section 602 after sustaining allegations of petty theft. It then placed him on probation and ordered him to attend a day care program and school without unexcused absence or tardiness. Several supplemental petitions were filed with various consequences; the last one, filed February 28, 1990, alleged that probationer had left his mother’s home on numerous occasions without permission, and had been absent continuously from school since February 5, 1990.

At the jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition, probationer’s mother gave confusing testimony about his absences from home. Antoinette Wiggins, his probation officer, also testified over objection that the dean of students at Woodside High School…