When a Loving Parent Still Faces a CPS Case

One of the hardest things for parents to hear is that they can face a dependency case even if they did nothing wrong. Under WIC 300(b)(1)(A), the county can rely on a parent's inability to protect the child, not just a failure to do so.

In In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, the California Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under this provision doesn't require proof that the parent was at fault or blameworthy. The case involved a mother who couldn't control her teenage daughter's dangerous behavior despite real efforts.

This comes up most often with:

•       Teenagers who run away, use drugs or put themselves in danger

•       Children with serious behavioral or mental health needs

•       Situations where another adult poses a risk the parent can't stop

Because the question is the child's risk, not the parent's blame, the most effective response is to show what you're doing about it: services you've sought, safety plans, treatment programs, and cooperation with schools and providers. A parent who is actively working to protect the child is in a much stronger position.

I've represented many good parents in these cases. A no-fault theory isn't a judgment on your character, and it shouldn't be argued as one.

Related reading: [WIC 300(b)(1): the four ways CPS alleges neglect](link to Post 7).

If you're facing a failure-to-protect allegation, call me at (855) 472-7368 for a free consultation.