In re Madison S.

In September 2014, Andrew, less than one month old, was admitted to the hospital with a skull fracture, bilateral hematomas on both sides of the brain, diffused retinal hemorrhage in his right eye, and multiple old fractures of the ribs. Andrew and his five-year-old half-sibling were taken into custody. Andrew was placed with his maternal great-grandparents. After an extended contested hearing, the juvenile court concluded that Andrew’s father was responsible for the infant’s serious injuries and denied father reunification services. Father had admitted to causing Andrew’s injuries during a pretext phone call with Mother and had been arrested. Both parents subsequently continued to deny responsibility. Mother reunited with Father and claimed that she made the pretext call under duress. She sought to establish that Andrew’s injuries were congenital while Father asserted that the five-year-old might have hurt the baby. The juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services with respect to Andrew and set a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. Neither parent was even willing to acknowledge that nonaccidental injury occurred, conduct amounting to “a willful denial of the injuries themselves.” View "In re Madison S." on Justia Law