In Re David M.

Orange County Social Services Agency v. David M.

Bad Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 822·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1870·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14011·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 411·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10298
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2005G035498California3,624 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

The role of the juvenile court and the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) in dependency proceedings is twofold: to ensure the safety, protection, and well-being of children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, while preserving the family whenever possible. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2) (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.) The juvenile court was created both to protect children and to preserve and strengthen children’s family ties. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959, fn. 1 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 , 920 P.2d 716 ].)

In this case, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over David M. and A.M. under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) in order to ensure their safety and well-being. We conclude, however, SSA failed to meet its burden of proof that there was a substantial risk of serious harm to David and A. at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. The juvenile court’s findings that David and A. are within the court’s jurisdiction are not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reverse the court’s jurisdiction order.

Summary of Petition and Evidence

David and…

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.