In In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, the presumption of section 355.1, subdivision (a), did not apply, because no competent medical evidence was introduced to show that the condition of the eight-year-old child (a torn hymen), even if evidence of sexual molestation, was of a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained except as the result of parental neglect. (Id. at pp. 1040-1041.) Moreover, even if the presumption did apply, it was rebutted by DCFS's own evidence, which showed that the child consistently denied having been sexually abused, that she provided a viable explanation for the injury (falling off her bicycle), and that the social worker believed that there was nothing the parents should have done to prevent the injury. (Id. at pp. 1040-1041.)