## Facts

- Edmond C. and Deborah C. were the parents of Eric (born 1971) and Edward (born 1973); their older child, Marlee, had previously been the subject of out-of-state dependency proceedings and was later adopted by the maternal grandmother.
- In an earlier California proceeding (1975), Eric and Edward were taken into protective custody due to lack of food, unsanitary home conditions, and Eric’s marks and welts from excessive overnight discipline by the father; the boys were later returned on a trial basis subject to supervision and recommended services.
- Years later, during a short visit with the parents, Marlee’s grandmother observed severe discipline; after an incident, she noticed blood on Marlee’s underwear and contacted police.
- A police visual inspection noted abrasions and lacerations to Marlee’s genital area; Marlee returned to the grandmother’s custody.
- Dependency petitions were filed for Eric and Edward alleging abuse/excessive discipline and neglect, asserting the boys were at risk of serious physical harm.
- At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Edmond acknowledged spanking as discipline, denied bruising, stated discipline was based on his faith, and rejected counseling as useless; Deborah supported Edmond’s methods.
- A probation officer reported “extreme discipline,” recommended foster/relative placement, and recommended parental counseling and related services.
- The juvenile court found return home would be harmful, declared Eric and Edward dependents under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a), removed them from parental custody under §§ 361–362, placed them with the probation officer for suitable placement, and ordered the parents to participate in counseling.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a) and removal from parental custody under §§ 361–362.
2. Whether the dispositional orders were invalid for failing to include a sufficiently explicit reunification plan.
3. Whether denial of a continuance after amended petitions were filed was an abuse of discretion causing prejudice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional judgments.
- Substantial evidence supported a finding that the minors were at substantial risk of serious physical harm based on past abuse/neglect history, the father’s pattern of extreme discipline, and the parents’ refusal to accept counseling.
- Removal and out-of-home placement were within the juvenile court’s discretion where the court found return home would be harmful and lesser measures were inadequate to protect the children.
- The dispositional orders were not defective for lack of a detailed reunification plan; ordering counseling and directing the parents to correct the disciplinary practices provided sufficient guidance.
- Denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion because continuances are disfavored in dependency matters and the parents failed to show prejudice from the amendments.

## Legal Principles

- On appeal in dependency matters, findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and drawing reasonable inferences to support it.
- Past abuse and neglect, coupled with current parental attitudes and refusal to cooperate with services, can support a predictive finding of substantial risk of serious physical harm under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(a).
- The juvenile court has broad discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 361–362 to remove a child and craft protective dispositional orders, including requiring parental counseling and suitable placement through the probation department.
- A dispositional order need not include a highly detailed reunification checklist so long as it reasonably informs parents of the conduct to be corrected and the services expected.
- Denial of a continuance in juvenile proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires a showing of prejudice for reversal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dependency jurisdiction and removal where the evidence showed an ongoing risk of serious physical harm tied to a history of abuse and the parents’ refusal to change, and it held that counseling-based dispositional directives were adequate without a detailed reunification plan and that denying a continuance was not prejudicial error.


In re Edward C., 178 Cal. Rptr. 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)