My notes on "failure to protect"
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:43 pm
“The statutory definition consists of three elements: (1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) "serious physical harm or illness" to the minor, or a "substantial risk" of such harm or illness.”,,
“The legislative history thus confirms an unmistakable intention to narrow the grounds on which children may be subjected to juvenile court jurisdiction.”,
“Subdivision (b) means what it says. Before courts and agencies can exert jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.” In re Rocco M., 1 Cal. App. 4th 814 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1991
An act or acts of abuse do not in themselves provide a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction. There must be some reason to believe the acts may continue in the future. In re Jennifer P., 174 Cal. App. 3d 322 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. This point effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, the child is at substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future.
Thus the past infliction of physical harm by a caretaker, standing alone, does not establish a substantial risk of physical harm; "[t]here must be some reason to believe the acts may continue in the future." (In re Jennifer P. (1985) 174 Cal. App.3d 322, 326 [219 Cal. Rptr. 909];
Appellate courts have often been compelled to reverse a finding of jurisdiction under subdivision (b), where the facts and the juvenile court's findings establish wrongdoing of some sort on the part of the parents, but not the risk of serious physical harm or illness required by the subdivision.
IN RE JH, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 2008
How specifically have the minors been harmed or will be harmed?
First group: an identified, specific hazard in the child's environment??
The second group involves children of such tender years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to their physical health and safety.
“The legislative history thus confirms an unmistakable intention to narrow the grounds on which children may be subjected to juvenile court jurisdiction.”,
“Subdivision (b) means what it says. Before courts and agencies can exert jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b), there must be evidence indicating that the child is exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness.” In re Rocco M., 1 Cal. App. 4th 814 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1991
An act or acts of abuse do not in themselves provide a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction. There must be some reason to believe the acts may continue in the future. In re Jennifer P., 174 Cal. App. 3d 322 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. This point effectively requires a showing that at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, the child is at substantial risk of serious physical harm in the future.
Thus the past infliction of physical harm by a caretaker, standing alone, does not establish a substantial risk of physical harm; "[t]here must be some reason to believe the acts may continue in the future." (In re Jennifer P. (1985) 174 Cal. App.3d 322, 326 [219 Cal. Rptr. 909];
Appellate courts have often been compelled to reverse a finding of jurisdiction under subdivision (b), where the facts and the juvenile court's findings establish wrongdoing of some sort on the part of the parents, but not the risk of serious physical harm or illness required by the subdivision.
IN RE JH, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 2008
How specifically have the minors been harmed or will be harmed?
First group: an identified, specific hazard in the child's environment??
The second group involves children of such tender years that the absence of adequate supervision and care poses an inherent risk to their physical health and safety.