In re Israel T.

Summary

Vicente T. and his wife were detained for alleged drug possession. Upon arrest, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Vicente's two children from his care and placed the children with relatives. DCFS found Vicente and his wife to have been dedicated and caring parents. The juvenile court held a hearing to determine whether the court had jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300. The court determined a finding of jurisdiction based on the drug allegations. However, in determining its finding, the juvenile court judge struck the words 'substantial' and 'serious,' as relating to the posed harm, and explicitly invited the appellate court to review and reverse. The court released the children and reunited them with their parents, finding no risk of harm. However, Under Section 360(b), which allows the court to order services or supervision when a child falls under the dependent classification in Section 300, the judge ordered Vicente to submit to random drug testing, parenting courses, and banned illicit drugs in the home. On appeal, Vicente argues the court failed to meet the statutory requirements under Section 300 and therefore the finding of jurisdiction was improper.

Reversed. A jurisdictional finding under Section 300(b) requires evidence showing that the child, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, is exposed to a 'substantial' risk of 'serious' physical harm in the future. Maggie S. v. Superior Court. This court found that at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the lower court purposefully removed the language stating a 'serious' and 'substantial' risk of harm was found in its finding of jurisdiction under Section 300. Furthermore, even if the removal of the language was not enough this court determined that there was no valid insinuation that the parents posed a serious risk to the children. The lower court clearly stated on the record that it did not believe the parents posed "any risk" towards the children let alone the requisite level of risk for a jurisdictional finding under Section 300. Accordingly, the lower court's jurisdictional finding failed to meet the statutory requirements under Section 300 and the finding must be reversed.

— Jimmy Quintana