## Facts

- Nicholas B. (born 1985) was adopted as a young child by Bill B. and Kimberly B. and later received ongoing therapy for behavioral and emotional problems.
- In September 1998, during a household dispute, Kimberly struck Nicholas in the face, causing a serious eye injury.
- The incident was reported, and the parents agreed to a voluntary plan placing Nicholas with a foster family while reunification services were pursued.
- In March 1999, the county agency filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b), alleging Nicholas faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm due to the parents’ inability to supervise or protect him, based largely on the September incident described as isolated.
- Nicholas was evaluated by mental health professionals and received diagnoses indicating significant psychological and behavioral issues.
- After a contested hearing with multiple witnesses, the juvenile court sustained most allegations, declared Nicholas a dependent under § 300(b), removed him from parental custody, ordered foster placement and reunification services, and suspended visitation for a period.
- The parents appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, arguing the petition did not plead facts establishing § 300(b) jurisdiction and that the evidence was insufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether the § 300(b) petition alleged essential facts showing a current “substantial risk” of serious physical harm, as required to establish dependency jurisdiction.
2. If the petition was sufficient, whether substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and resulting dispositional orders.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order.
- The court held the petition failed, on its face, to allege essential facts establishing a current substantial risk of serious physical harm under § 300(b).
- Because jurisdiction was not properly pleaded, the related dispositional and visitation orders were reversed as a consequence, and the court did not reach the broader evidentiary sufficiency claims.

## Legal Principles

- Dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b) requires pleaded facts showing a current substantial risk the child will suffer serious physical harm due to parental failure or inability to supervise or protect.
- Past physical harm by a caregiver, standing alone, does not establish § 300(b) jurisdiction; there must be pleaded facts supporting a reasonable inference the harmful conduct will continue or that the child presently faces substantial risk.
- The statutory bases for dependency jurisdiction are limited and must be matched to the factual theory alleged; a petition must plead the elements of the specific subdivision invoked.
- A jurisdictional pleading deficiency cannot be cured solely by evidence produced at a contested hearing; jurisdiction must rest on a petition that alleges essential jurisdictional facts.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the dependency jurisdiction and resulting dispositional orders because the petition relied on a serious but isolated past injury and did not allege facts showing an ongoing, current substantial risk of physical harm as required for § 300(b) jurisdiction.


In re Nicholas B. v. Bill B., 88 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 465 (Ct. App. 2001)