Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SCJVSQ015001902
RAYE, J.In the current appeal, Marilyn T., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court entered at a status review hearing continuing the minors in long-term foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.3, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant once again generally asserts denial of due process in the proceedings. We affirm.
Appellant has several pending appeals. This appeal as to the minor N. has been dismissed because that minor’s case was set for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing and review of the order must be by extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.)
FACTS
The February 2008 report for the hearing to review the long-term foster care status of the three minors -- B., 15; A., 15; and N., 12 -- recommended continued foster placement with evaluation of guardianship for N. The report stated A. was doing well in her foster placement and wanted to stay there. A. was adjusting to a move the foster family had made in 2007 and was showing improvement in her schoolwork. She continued to refuse psychotropic medication prescribed for her.
B. had given birth to a child in December 2007 and was residing in the same foster home as her sister. After several years of refusing visits, B. had agreed to see appellant and the two visits went well. The report stated B. needed to learn to get along with others and to be a positive role model for her child.
N. was placed separately from his sisters and was doing very well in the home. He was taking his prescribed medication and wanted to stay in his current placement.
The court scheduled a contested status review hearing on the issue of returning the minors to appellant’s custody. At the date set for the contested hearing, the court was informed B.’s placement had changed and the minors were now in separate homes. Appellant’s counsel wanted B. to testify on the issue of returning to appellant’s home; however, B. was not available and counsel requested a continuance. The court continued the hearing.
When the status review hearing recommenced, B. was still not available and appellant’s counsel again sought a continuance. The social worker testified he had spoken to the girls about returning to their mother. B. was adamant that she did not want to return. A. was ambivalent; she wanted to take care of appellant but also wanted to have her friends and her current life. The social worker also spoke to N., who was very excited about the prospect of guardianship with his current caretaker.
The court denied appellant’s request for continuance because it was not likely that having B. present to testify would produce any evidence helpful to appellant. The court adopted the recommended findings and orders continuing the girls in long-term foster care and set a section 366.26 hearing for N.
DISCUSSION
Appellant has filed a single page opening brief that generally asserts she was denied due process in the review hearing. The brief does not set forth any specific issue, nor does it support the general claim of denial of due process by legal argument and reference to matters in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.) We are unable to ascertain any arguable issue raised by appellant.
Respondent correctly observes the court had discretion to deny a further continuance and properly exercised its discretion. (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 352.) Further, the record shows that appellant was present in person or by counsel at the hearings and substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s rulings. (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) No error or specific denial of due process having been brought to our attention, the orders of the juvenile court must be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.