confirm it. Additional evidence of a different character to the same point.’ [Citation.] In
this context, corroborating evidence is that which supports a logical and reasonable
inference that the act described in the hearsay statement occurred. [Citation.]” (
In re B.D
.,
supra
, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 984.) This standard is analogous to the rule in criminal law
requiring independent corroborative proof of accomplice testimony. (
In re B.D
.,
supra
,
156 Cal.App.4th at pp. 984-985.) Thus with respect to dependency jurisdictional findings,
corroborative evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, (1) is sufficient if it tends to
connect the allegedly offending parent with the alleged negligent act even though it is
slight and “entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration [citations], nor
does it need to establish the precise facts” in the hearsay statements; (2) is sufficient if it
tends to connect the allegedly offending parent with the alleged negligent act and the
parent’s “own statements and admissions, made in connection with other testimony, may
afford corroboratory proof sufficient” to find jurisdiction; (3) need not “go so far as to
establish by itself, and without the aid of the testimony of [the hearsay declarant], that the
[allegedly offending parent] committed the [negligent act] charged[;]” (4) may include
the allegedly offending parent’s “own testimony and inferences therefrom, as well as the
inferences from the circumstances surrounding the entire transaction[;]” and (5) may
consist of “[f]alse or misleading statements to authorities . . . or as part of circumstances
supportive of corroboration.” (
Ibid
.)
“ ‘[W]hether the corroborating evidence is as
compatible with innocence as it is with guilt is a question of weight for the trier of fact
[citations].’ [Citation.]” (
Ibid
.) “Using these standards, there is evidence in [the appellate]
record which, if considered by the trial court, could have corroborated the statements of
the [two hearsay declarants at issue].” (
Ibid
.)
“The agency has a duty to apprise the court of all relevant facts and circumstances
when issuing reports.”
(
Nickolas F. v. Superior Court
(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 92, 108.)
Social worker need not solicit a statement from the child if the procedure would be
detrimental.
(
In re Leo M.
(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1592.)
13
A social worker’s bias is not ground for excluding the social worker’s report;
credibility is an issue of fact.
(
In re Valerie A.
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1012-1013.)
Waiver:
Failing to object to receiving the social worker report ten days in advance
waives the claim of lack of notice.
(
In re Christopher M.
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 155,
161.)
Waiver:
Submitting on the social worker’s
recommendation
waived any claim of
insufficiency of the evidence for jurisdiction or removal.
(
In re Richard K.
(1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 580, 590.)
Waiver:
Submitting on the social worker’s
report
does
not
waive claim of
insufficiency of evidence on appeal.
(
In re N. S.
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 170;
Steve
J. v. Superior Court
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 812;
In re Tommy E.
(1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 1234, 1237.)
Waiver:
