G.Z., In re (2022) B313378 B313378; filed 11/30/22. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B313378.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B313378.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Welfare and Institutions Code section 355.1: burden of producing evidence, distinguished from the burden of proof. Mother supplied rebuttal evidence in this case. > Once DCFS establishes a prima facie case that a child is subject to dependency jurisdiction because he or she has sustained an injury “ ‘of a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions’ ” of a caregiver, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the parents the obligation of raising an issue as to the actual cause of the injury or the fitness of the home. (In re D.P. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 898, 903; In re A.S. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 237, 242–243, disapproved on other grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) If the parents raise rebuttal evidence, the county child welfare agency maintains the burden of proving the alleged facts. (In re A.S., at p. 243.) — G.Z., In re (2022) B313378, slip op., p. 35.