S.V., In re (2022) A163272 A163272; filed 12/22/22. ![[Files/CaseFiles/A163272.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/A163272.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Dependency petition amendments; quoting In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042. The amendment introduced a new emotional-abuse theory against a previously nonoffending parent. > In dependency proceedings, amendments to conform to proof are favored. (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042 (Jessica C.); see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 348 [Code Civ. Proc., § 469 et seq., regarding variance and amendment of pleadings in civil actions, apply to dependency petitions and proceedings].) However, “[i]f a variance between pleading and proof . . . is so wide that it would, in effect, violate due process to allow the amendment, the court should . . . refuse any such amendment.” (Jessica C., at p. 1042.) Or, stated otherwise, amendments according to proof should not be denied “unless the pleading as drafted prior to the proposed amendment would have misled the adversarial party to its prejudice.” (Ibid.) — S.V., In re (2022) A163272, slip op., p. 16.