Does Protective Supervision Require Wandering?

If the county denied protective supervision because your child “doesn’t wander,” you’re not alone—and that reason is often legally incorrect.

Protective supervision is not limited to elopement or wandering. The standard is whether your child is non-self-directing and at risk of injury due to a mental impairment, including self-harm or dangerous impulsive behavior.

What Protective Supervision Is Based On

Protective supervision is authorized when a child:

• Has a mental impairment or developmental disability
• Is non-self-directing
• Requires continuous supervision to prevent injury

The focus is on safety risk, not a single type of behavior.

Wandering is only one example of dangerous behavior—not a requirement.

Common Misunderstanding About Wandering

Counties often rely on wandering because:

• It’s easy to observe
• It’s easy to describe
• It’s commonly cited in training materials

But the law does not say a child must wander to qualify.

Children who never leave the home may still require constant supervision due to unpredictable or unsafe behaviors.

Self-Harm and Impulsive Behavior Matter

Protective supervision can be based on risks such as:

• Self-injury (head-banging, biting, scratching, cutting)
• Ingesting unsafe objects or substances
• Running into traffic impulsively
• Turning on stoves, water, or appliances unsafely
• Climbing, jumping, or other dangerous impulsive acts

If your child lacks the judgment to keep themselves safe, protective supervision may be appropriate even without wandering.

The Real Legal Question

The correct question is:
Can your child assess danger and act safely without constant oversight?

If the answer is no, the behavior triggering risk does not need to be wandering.

Counties are required to evaluate all dangerous behaviors, not just elopement.

What Evidence Helps in These Cases

To challenge a denial based on “no wandering,” parents often submit:

• Incident logs showing unsafe impulsive acts
• Medical or psychological evaluations
• IEPs or behavior plans addressing safety
• Statements from therapists or doctors
• Examples of constant intervention to prevent injury

The goal is to show that supervision is required for safety, regardless of whether your child leaves the home.

Appealing a Denial Based on Wandering

If your NOA denies protective supervision solely because your child does not wander:

1. File an appeal promptly
2. Focus on dangerous behaviors and lack of self-direction
3. Avoid framing the issue as parenting or preference
4. Emphasize risk of injury, not diagnosis alone

Many of these denials are overturned when the correct legal standard is applied.

The Bottom Line

Wandering is not required for protective supervision. Self-harm and impulsive dangerous behavior are valid and recognized safety risks under the law.

If your child cannot keep themselves safe without constant supervision, a denial based solely on “no wandering” may be improper—and worth challenging.

Protective supervision is about preventing injury, not checking boxes.

Need help? In California, the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program provides crucial financial help for families raising children with special needs. American Advocacy Group is on the front lines every day, making positive change happen for people diagnosed with autism, Down syndrome, and a range of diagnoses across the continuum. As a leading advocate for all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families, and the premier provider of the support and services people want and need, we understand the system and know how to take action regarding your best interests.

CONTACT US FOR HELP. Dial (877) 762-0702 or email us at [email protected].