Additional evidence of a different character to the same point Citation In this

Additional evidence of a different character to the

This preview shows page 13 - 15 out of 16 pages.

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
Image of page 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:
Image of page 14
Image of page 15

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture