California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re A.T. et al. is that juvenile courts may not assert jurisdiction under section 300(e) over a child who is over five years old at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, under circumstances where the child suffered severe physical abuse before turning five but had reached age five or older by the time of the hearing.

The Rule of In re Z.G. is that a juvenile court may not terminate parental rights merely by finding a likelihood of adoption but must also make one of the additional findings referenced in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), under circumstances where a parent has not received statutorily guaranteed reunification services and was not properly bypassed for such services.

The Rule of In re Reyna R. is that a juvenile court errs in ordering a parent to pay for professional visitation monitoring without first considering the parent's ability to pay or reasonable alternatives when the parent raises a timely objection based on financial inability, under circumstances where the parent objects to professional monitoring costs at the exit order hearing.

The Rule of In re L.G. is that substantial evidence must support a juvenile court's finding that there are no reasonable means to protect a child without removal, and the Bureau must make reasonable efforts to prevent removal before a child can be taken from parental custody, under circumstances where a parent has mental health issues but the Bureau has not explored alternative interventions like family maintenance plans or evaluated available support persons.

The Rule of In re O.M. et al. is that uncontradicted evidence of parental inability to acknowledge or address a child's malnutrition compels dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), under circumstances where the parent lacks insight into nutritional deficiencies despite hospitalization for malnutrition and cannot articulate a specific plan to prevent recurrence.