In re Esmeralda B.

203 Citing cases

  1. In re Olivia S.

    H029972 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)

             The father asserts the lack of sufficient evidence that the parents were responsible for Olivia’s injury. He relies on In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036. In that case, the appellate court reversed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, finding no evidence to support them.

  2. In re Alex S.

    No. B223065 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2011)

    Section 355.1 does not affect the burden of proof, but only the burden of producing evidence. (In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1041.) Section 355.1 requires the mandatory inference of two presumed facts unless rebuttal evidence is offered: “The first requires the court to presume a child’s injury actually occurred by injury or neglect when the court finds the injury is of the sort which ordinarily would not occur except by abuse or neglect.

  3. Orange Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. D.S. (In re Owen S.)

    No. G063618 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024)

    (In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044.)

  4. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Vanessa G. (In re U.M.)

    No. B325187 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2023)

    ; accord, In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge."]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 ["[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision."].)

  5. San Luis Obispo Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. C.K. (In re S.K.)

    2d Juv. No. B307188 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2021)

    "[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision." (In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044.) The juvenile court said Father was drinking alcohol and taking antidepressant medications.

  6. L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. E.P. (In re M.P.)

    No. B284858 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2018)

    In light of Father's propensity to strike M.P. and his unreserved denial of abuse, the juvenile court reasonably could conclude that M.P. was at risk of physical harm at the time of the jurisdictional hearing. (See In re Benjamin D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1464, 1472 [Father's indifference toward child's pain constituted a substantial risk of serious physical harm].) Further, Father did not acknowledge his mistakes or take any proactive steps to lessen the risk to M.P. (See In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 ["denial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future"]; see also In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 ["one cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge"].) In sum, Father does not meet his burden of showing the evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings on count b-1.

  7. L.A. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Antonio V. (In re Richard V.)

    No. B251094 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2014)

    A parent’s denial is a relevant factor in determining whether the parent is likely to modify his behavior. (In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044; see also In re R.C. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 930, 942 [“‘Studies demonstrate that once violence occurs in a relationship, the use of force will reoccur in 63% of these relationships.... Even if a batterer moves on to another relationship, he will continue to use physical force as a means of controlling his new partner’”].) Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that the children remained at risk within the meaning of section 300, subdivision (a).

  8. San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. L.C.

    No. D059629 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011)

    that the child's injury "would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions of either parent . . . ." The section 355.1, subdivision (a) presumptions survive only until the parents present evidence to rebut the presumed facts. (§ 355.1, subd. (c); In re James B. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 934, 937; In re Larissa W. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 124, 132, 277; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1040.) L.C. argues that the doctor's diagnosis does not constitute adequate "competent professional evidence" within the meaning of section 355.1, subdivision (a), and maintains that even if it does, the section 355.1, subdivision (a) presumptions were rebutted by evidence in the Agency's reports that visits between L.C. and the children were generally appropriate and positive, and that the children were attached to her.

  9. In re Daniel G.

    No. B227449 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2011)

    ” Mother cites In re James R., supra, 176 Cal.App.4th 129, In re Esmeralda B., (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, and In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139 in support of her argument that there was no causal relation between any conduct by Mother and harm to the minors. In those cases, the reviewing courts concluded that the link between the parents’ actions and any harm or future risk of harm to the minors was speculative or unsupported by substantial evidence.

  10. In re E.B.

    184 Cal.App.4th 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 432 times
    Holding substantial evidence supported a finding that the mother failed to protect the children from the father's domestic abuse where the mother remained in abusive relationship and returned to the father despite the abuse

    The presumption "survives until there is rebuttal evidence submitted." ( In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1041 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 179].) Because Father admitted to being a registered sex offender and presented no evidence contesting jurisdiction, the juvenile court's finding of jurisdiction under subdivisions (b) and (d) of section 300 is supported by the section 355.1 presumption alone.