Opinion ID: 1449871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: A jurisdiction hearing under section 300 was held in July 1989. Both parents appeared with their respective counsel, who informed the court their clients wished to plead no contest (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1449(e)) to the section 300 allegations. The court proceeded to explain to the parents the various rights they would waive by pleading no contest to the allegations. At that point the deputy district attorney (representing DSS) interjected: Excuse me, ... I'm wondering if the court would like to advise that the law presumes that if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence at a dispositional hearing that the parent[s'] activities brought the child within the meaning of section 300(e), the law would presume that there would be no reunification between them and their child; however, they would have the ability at that hearing to show that reunification with the child might be in the child's best interest, and if so ordered, then they would have to follow the orders of the court. [¶] However, if a court at a dispositional hearing did not find it was in the best interest of the child that reunification efforts be had, that the court at that hearing would order that a hearing occur within 120 days which could result in the[] parent[s'] rights to the child being terminated. The court commented that [t]he district attorney has taken it one step further than where we are today, and that is, what are the consequences of your entering a plea. The court asked the parents' respective counsel whether they had an opportunity to discuss the consequences with respect to disposition with your clients? Both counsel answered, That is correct. The court then stated: Parents have heard the explanation of the district attorney with respect to the fact that there is an allegation under [section] 300(e), ... which is your willfully having done acts which led to the medical condition.... The court stated it understood the parents intend to put on evidence with respect to that but ... it [will be] your job to ... convince the court that it is in the child's best interest that reunification services be offered to you. [¶] You understand the process and the possibility that exists particularly with respect to the [section] 300(e) allegation? Both parents answered affirmatively. The court concluded: Having all of that in mind, including the representations made and the discussions made by the district attorney and the discussion with respect to that, you still wish to enter a plea of no contest? Both parents again replied affirmatively. The court then found that each parent understands the nature of the conduct alleged in the petition and the possible consequences. It found the reports of the admitting doctors established a factual basis for the plea and the allegations of the petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1449(f)(6)) and found each allegation to be true as alleged by clear and convincing evidence. The minor is a person described under subdivisions (a), (b) and (e) of section 300.... (§ 356.) The court set a disposition hearing for August 1989.