In Re Daniel Z.

Daniel Z. v. Charles Z.

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1009·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 139
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 1992A056836California1,577 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

Introduction

Charles and Eulogia Z. appeal from orders declaring their children Daniel, Melissa and Nathan to be dependent children of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300). We hold (1) although an exception to the hearsay rule permits admission of a social study report at a child dependency jurisdictional hearing, this exception does not apply to claims of abuse contained in the report if the children were incompetent when they made the statements; (2) if children are found incompetent to testify at the jurisdictional hearing because of inability to understand the duty to tell the truth, there is a rebuttable presumption of incompetency when they made the earlier statements contained in the social study report; (3) this presumption may be rebutted by evidence the children were competent when they made the earlier statements; and (4) even if the children were incompetent, the statements in the social study report are still admissible if they meet the requirements of the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, since this does not require a finding of competency.

II. Background

A. The Report of Abuse

In the summer and fall of 1991, Daniel, Melissa 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.