In re O.M.

── In re O.M. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re O.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, A173461 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. JV2500003, M.M. et al., JV2500004) Defendants and Respondents; O.M. et al., Appellants. When two-year-old O.M. was hospitalized for a femur fracture and nutritional deficiencies, the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) filed dependency petitions on behalf of O.M. and his younger sibling, E.M. (collectively, Minors). Following a jurisdictional hearing, the court dismissed the petitions. Minors appeal, arguing the uncontested evidence compelled a finding that O.M. was a child 1 described under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 300, subdivisions (b) and (e), and E.M. under section 300, subdivision (j). We agree that the juvenile court erred in dismissing the allegations based on O.M.’s risk of malnutrition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). We therefore reverse and remand the matter with directions to the juvenile court to enter jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). In all other respects, the jurisdictional orders are affirmed. BACKGROUND Petitions and Detention M.M. (Mother) and D.B. (Father) are the parents of O.M. (born September 2022) and E.M. (born December 2023). 2 On January 7, 2025, the Department filed dependency petitions on behalf of then two-year-old O.M. and then one-year-old E.M. 3 As to O.M., the petitions described him as a child within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (e) (severe physical abuse). Under section 300, subdivision (b), count b-1 alleged that on December 30, 2024, O.M. “was taken to the emergency room (ER) due to a leg injury he received in [father and mother’s] care. . . . [O.M.] suffered a broken femur in his parents care . . . . The parents’ recollection of how the injury happened were initially different stories. [O.M.’s] injury is the result of a significant impact. Neither parent flew with [O.M.] from Humboldt to Oakland. The parents 1 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 Mother was pregnant with their third child during the proceedings. Father had three other children from a prior relationship. 3 A separate case number was assigned to each of the Minors in the superior court (case no. JV2500003 for O.M. and case no. JV2500004 for E.M.), but their cases were frequently heard together. 2 were not staying bedside with [O.M.] while he is being treated at UCSF. [Mother] left the hospital during [O.M.’s] surgery and was not able to be reached. [O.M.’s] broken leg, the parent[s’] lack of information as to how the injury occurred and the parents’ absence [at] the hospital places [O.M.] at risk of serious physical harm . . . .” Count b-2 alleged that O.M. “is being treated for malnutrition in addition to his broken femur. He is less than 1% for his height and 1% for weight for his developmental age. The evidence of his malnutrition are his elevated levels of vitamin D-12, Microcytic anemia (iron deficiency), and his vitamin D and phosphorus is low. The mother was observed by hospital staff to be watering down [O.M.’s] soy formula. The mother and father’s prolonged failure to provide adequate nutrition placed the child [O.M.] at risk of severe physical harm.” Count b-3 alleged Mot