## Facts

- A dependency petition was filed under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b), alleging the mother’s failure or inability to supervise or protect her 17-year-old daughter, Precious.
- Precious repeatedly ran away, skipped school, and associated with older males; she also made allegations of abuse and a sexual assault that were not substantiated.
- Precious was placed in foster care and later a group home, but continued to run away and resist returning home.
- The mother denied abuse in the home, sought help for Precious’s behavior, feared Precious might be prostituting, and maintained frequent contact with Precious, including daily phone calls.
- The juvenile court sustained the § 300(b) petition, found the mother unable to supervise or protect Precious (and found communication inadequate), and removed Precious from the mother’s custody.
- The mother appealed the jurisdictional finding and the removal (disposition) order.

## Issues

1. Whether § 300(b) permits dependency jurisdiction based solely on a teenager’s incorrigible/runaway behavior and a parent’s asserted “inability” to supervise, without proof of parental unfitness or neglectful conduct causing serious physical harm or a substantial risk of such harm.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that Precious had suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness as a result of the mother’s failure or inability to supervise or protect.
3. Whether the removal order could stand if the jurisdictional basis under § 300(b) was unsupported.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and disposition (removal) orders.
- The court held that § 300(b)’s “inability … to adequately supervise or protect” language requires proof of parental unfitness or neglectful conduct, not merely a child’s incorrigibility.
- The court found insufficient evidence that the mother was unfit or neglectful, or that any serious harm or substantial risk of harm was caused by the mother’s conduct rather than Precious’s own behavior.
- Because jurisdiction failed, the removal order lacked a valid predicate and was also reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b) requires a showing that the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical harm or illness as a result of parental failure, inability, neglectful conduct, or other unfitness.
- The “inability … to adequately supervise or protect” clause is not a standalone ground to assert jurisdiction over an incorrigible or runaway teenager absent parental fault linked to serious harm or risk of harm.
- Substantial-evidence review permits reasonable inferences from evidence, but findings may not rest on speculation or conjecture.
- If the jurisdictional finding is reversed, disposition orders premised on that jurisdiction (including removal from parental custody) must also be reversed.

## Conclusion

The court held that a parent’s difficulty controlling a troubled older teenager does not, without proof of parental unfitness or neglect causing serious harm or a substantial risk of harm, support dependency jurisdiction under § 300(b); accordingly, both jurisdiction and removal orders were reversed.


In re Precious D., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1251 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)