In In re H.S. vs. C.S., 2010 DJDAR 14008, the juvenile court found that a different conclusion reached by a new expert is not new evidence if the expert relied on the original medical records and reports presented at trial.  In this case H.S. who was two months old, was taken into protective custody after a hospital examination revealed that H.S. had non accidental injuries including a broken arm and subdural hematoma.  Expert witnesses at trial testified to the injuries and the court denied reunification services with the parents because it was not in the best interests.  C.S. then found an expert, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati who analyzed the medical records and reports and found that there were other explanations for the injuries besides abuse.  The court found that since Dr. Al-Bayati reviewed the same documents that the other experts had reviewed, that were available at the trial, the court could not hear the testimony.  They found that a Section 388 motion has to be based on new evidence, and not a new opinion of the same evidence.  Therefore, the court would not hear the expert’s testimony and denied reunification services.  If C.S. had Dr. Al-Bayati testify at the trial with the other experts, his testimony would have been admissible.

As you can see there are many rules and timing requirements in a dependency matter. In order to protect your rights and help you obtain custody of your children you need to seek a knowledgeable dependency attorney. Wallin & Klarich has more than 30 years of experience in dependency law. Our attorneys know from long experience what works in a dependency, and are prepared to fight to get you the best possible outcome. With 16 attorneys in 33 offices throughout Southern California, we can be there when you need us — wherever you are. If you’re thinking of hiring an attorney for a dependency case, call us today at 1-888-749-7428 for a consultation.