This objective is met through the orderly procession of hearings within the "timetable of CINC proceedings." See In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 386, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). In this case, the district court allowed counsel for K.H. (Mother) to withdraw with minimal inquiry and denied Mother’s motion to continue the termination hearing and appoint new counsel.

The children had been in DCF temporary custody and outside the home since April 2013. Courts are mindful that in proceedings like those here, they are to take into consideration a child's sense of time in reaching a resolution. In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 386, 172 P.2d 1 (2007). The provisions of the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children should be construed to ‘ “best serve the child's welfare.’

While indigent parents and custodians in CINC proceedings are statutorily entitled to court-appointed counsel, the right may be waived in writing or on the record and the parents and/or custodians can proceed pro se. K.S.A. 38-2205(b)(1); see In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 384, 172 P.3d 1 (2007) (Father waived statutory right to counsel when he asked his counsel to be removed so he could proceed pro se and he did not request new counsel). Here, Mother has not alleged the district court failed to follow a specific procedural process but merely somehow wrongly permitted her to waive her right to counsel.

Discretion is not abused when reasonable minds could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the district court. See In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 384–85, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). The party asserting that the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 293, 200 P.3d 467 (2009).

An appellate court reviews the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 385, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). “Typically, ‘discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court.’ “ In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. at 385 (quoting Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389, 393, 153 P.3d 1227 2007 ).

We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and reverse "'only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court.'" In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 384-85, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). The party asserting an abuse of discretion bears the burden of proving the district court abused its discretion.

It is important to decide these cases in “ ‘child time’ “ rather than “ ‘adult time’ “ so that children do not languish in DCF (SRS) custody. In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 386, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). This court may predict parents' future unfitness based on their past conduct.

(Emphasis added.) We echoed this language in another CINC case, In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). There, we quoted much of the above passage from J.D.C. and stated: "In In re J.D.C., this court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate J.D.C. was a child in need of care and that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard.

And as the State points out, its interest in protecting children extends to the requirement that all proceedings under the Code be concluded in an expedited manner. See K.S.A. 38-2201(b)(4); In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 386, 172 P.3d 1 (2007) (quoting K.S.A. 38-1501 [Furse 2000], the predecessor to K.S.A. 38-2201) (interpreting K.S.A. 38-1551 [Furse 2000], the predecessor to K.S.A. 38-2246, and related statutes under the Code, to require "that all proceedings be disposed of without unnecessary delay and that Code provisions be 'liberally construed' to 'best serve the child's welfare'").

We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and reverse "'only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court.'" In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 384-85, 172 P.3d 1 (2007). The party asserting an abuse of discretion