San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Virginia B.

Opinion

WIENER, J.

The order declaring James B. (Jimmy) a minor of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d)

1

and removing him from the custody of his parents Virginia and James B. arose out of his near death condition when his parents presented him for care at Balboa Naval Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery for a subdural hematoma. His parents appeal the order. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The focus of the issues at trial and also on appeal is the cause of Jimmy’s critical condition. The parents, Virginia and James, testified Jimmy fell out of bed approximately 40 to 45 hours before he fell into a coma. They testified this fall was aggravated by a second fall from a height of approximately 24 inches off a couch one hour before Jimmy arrived at the hospital. His parents offered the expert testimony of a pediatrics neurologist that Jimmy’s condition could have been caused by a fall from his bed. The San Diego County Department of Social Services offered expert testimony that Jimmy’s condition could not have been caused by such a fall. They also relied upon reports submitted by other doctors and the child abuse committee which supported the testimony of their expert.

Discussion

Social worker Karen Davis filed a dependent child petition under section 300, subdivision (d) alleging Jimmy’s home was unfit. The petition further

[937]

alleged under section 355.2 that Jimmy’s medical condition ordinarily would not occur except as the result of unreasonable and/or neglectful acts or omissions on the part of his parents.

The judge relied on section 355.2 in reaching his disposition of the case. Section 355.2 provides: “Where the court finds, based upon competent professional evidence, that an injury . . . sustained by a minor, of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions of either parent, [or] guardian, . . . such evidence shall be prima facie evidence that the minor’s home is an unfit place . . . and such proof shall be sufficient to support a finding that the minor is described by subdivision (d) of Section 300.” The judge interpreted the statute to relieve him of making findings of fact as to how Jimmy’s injury actually occurred and whether his home was unfit. We conclude the judge misinterpreted and misapplied the statute.