required preponderance of evidence standard in California

2024A. The Court Properly Removed the Child from Mother’s Custody “Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal.” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.); § 361, subd. (c)(1).) “This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child.” (Hailey T., at p. 146.) “The standard of r

2022“This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child.” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.).) “Clear and convincing evidence” has been defined as evidence requiring “a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.” (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 .) “The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test.” (Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 146.) In assessing juvenile court error concerning remov

2022“This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child.” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.).) “Clear and convincing evidence” has been defined as evidence requiring “a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.” (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 .) “The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test.” (Hailey T., supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 146.) In assessing juvenile court error concerning remov

2022“This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child.” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 (Hailey T.).) “Clear and 14 convincing evidence” has been defined as evidence requiring “a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.” (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 .) The heightened burden of proof is “‘premised on the notion that keeping children with their parents while proceedings are pending, whenever safely possible, serves not only to protect pare

2015Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides that a child “shall not be taken from the physical custody of [a parent] . . . with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence . . . [¶] [that] [t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physica

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2015Section 361, subdivision (c)(1), provides that a child “shall not be taken from the physical custody of [a parent] . . . with whom the child resides at the time the petition was initiated, unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence . . . [¶] [that] [t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s physica

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2013(In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 145 .) “Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 .) This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 145–146.) Juan argues the Department c

2012(In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 ].) Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ].) This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd.

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2014To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor . . .” “and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . .” This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd. (a); In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 450 ], limited on other grounds in In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Ca

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2016To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that ‘[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor’ ‘and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . [.]’ This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking 11 jurisdiction over a child.” (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 825 ; see In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 [“[c]lear and convincing evidence requires a high pr

2016(In re A.E., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 825 [clear and convincing standard under § 361, subd. (c) “is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child”].) Therefore, the order removing Baby Boy T. from father’s custody is not supported by substantial evidence.

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2014(In re Diamond H. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127 , 1136 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 715 ], disapproved on another ground in Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735, 748, fn. 6 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 , 28 P.3d 876 ]; In re Jamie M. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 778 ].) The standard of review of a dispositional order on appeal is the substantial evidence test, “bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.” (In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ]; see In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 849 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 772 ].) The appellant has the burden of

2016To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that ‘[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor’ ‘and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . [.]’ This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking 11 jurisdiction over a child.” (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 825 ; see In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 [“[c]lear and convincing evidence requires a high pr

2016To do so, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that ‘[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor’ ‘and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical health can be protected . . . [.]’ This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking 11 jurisdiction over a child.” (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 825 ; see In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 695 [“[c]lear and convincing evidence requires a high pr

2016(In re C.M. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401 [discussing “clear and convincing evidence standard” at disposition]; In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 [the clear and convincing standard “is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child”].) We note that the dependency court made its disposition findings as to both mother and father based on section 361, subdivision (c) that “there is a substantial danger if this child were returned home to his physical health, safety, protection, physical and emotional well

2012(In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 ].) Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ].) This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd.

2012(In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 575 ].) Before the court may order a child physically removed from his or her parents, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the child would be at substantial risk of harm if returned home and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected without removal. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ].) This is a heightened standard of proof from the required preponderance of evidence standard for taking jurisdiction over a child. (§§ 300, 355, subd.