## Facts

- A mother had four young children and was pregnant with a fifth.
- A county social services agency investigated after a report that one child had bruises and cuts; the worker observed injuries and scarring on some children.
- The worker learned the mother had a severe intellectual disability and limited functional skills.
- A physician found two children had significant developmental delays likely caused by malnutrition; a third was underweight; a fourth was in excellent health.
- A dependency petition was filed; at the jurisdictional hearing, the mother testified she believed the children were well fed and had not been told they were malnourished.
- A neighbor testified she repeatedly heard the mother mistreating or threatening to mistreat the children.
- The juvenile court found the children dependents, ordered temporary removal, and placed them in foster care under agency custody.
- After removal, the agency offered counseling on nutrition and child care; the mother refused.
- At disposition, the mother proposed an in-home plan with her sister moving in as a homemaker; the juvenile court rejected the plan and continued foster placement and agency custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory provisions authorizing “family protective services” required the agency to provide supportive services before filing a dependency petition and seeking removal.
2. Whether the absence of prepetition services required reversal of the dependency finding or the dispositional custody order.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported dependency jurisdiction and whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by rejecting the sister’s in-home alternative at disposition.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders.
- The court held that prepetition family protective services were not a mandatory condition precedent to filing a dependency petition or to the juvenile court’s authority to order removal.
- The court found substantial evidence supporting dependency based on neglect, including malnutrition and developmental delays.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in continuing agency custody and foster placement instead of adopting the proposed in-home arrangement with the sister.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory authorization for family protective services is permissive and supportive, not a jurisdictional prerequisite to dependency proceedings or removal orders.
- A juvenile court may act without prior provision of services when the evidence shows neglect or risk requiring court intervention to protect children.
- Dependency findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
- Dispositional placement determinations, including whether to accept an in-home alternative, are reviewed for abuse of discretion with deference to the juvenile court’s assessment of the children’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dependency jurisdiction and continued foster placement, holding that the agency’s failure to provide family protective services before filing the petition did not bar the proceeding or invalidate removal where substantial evidence showed neglect and the juvenile court reasonably rejected the proposed in-home alternative.


In re Q., 31 Cal. App. 3d 709, 107 Cal. Rptr. 646 (Ct. App. 1973)