Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in In Re Zacharia D.
39 Cal.3d 787, 792 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 448
The opinion
KAUS, J.
I concur. The lead opinion reaches what I believe to be the only result which comports with justice. Yet, after reading Justice Reynoso’s dissent, I cannot help having some misgivings that—given the “detriment” standard—the lead opinion comes close to impinging on the substantial evidence rule.
The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the trouble with this case is not so much the factfinding process, but this court’s unfortunate *797 misstep in In re Baby Girl M. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 65 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 688 P.2d 918 ]. The sooner we rectify that mistake, the better. Applying the standard which ought to govern—“what disposition is in the best interests of the child?”—there can be no question that the lead opinion has reached the correct result.