Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JD227279, JD227280, JD227281.
MAURO, J.
Mother of the minors appeals from juvenile court orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother contends she did not receive adequate notice of the contested hearing and that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request to continue the hearing.
The record establishes, however, that mother’s attorney requested the hearing based on prior conversations with mother, and mother’s attorney agreed to the date and time for the hearing. Mother’s counsel sent messages to mother by phone and e-mail, but mother did not respond until the eve of the hearing. Mother failed to inform the court or her attorney that she had moved to Oregon; the hearing notice was mailed to mother’s address of record. Mother had not appeared for prior hearings, despite receiving personal service.
On this record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that mother failed to show good cause for a continuance. We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
BACKGROUND
After a period of informal supervision pursuant to a non-detaining petition, the minors (ages 5, 4 and 1) were removed from mother in June 2009 due to her chronic mental health problems. At the initial hearing in April 2008, mother designated a mailing address and the juvenile court informed her of the continuing need to provide the court with a current address for purposes of mailing notices to her.
Mother failed to reunify with the minors. Mother subsequently informed the juvenile court that she had a new address on Palm Avenue in Sacramento, California. Mother was personally served at her new address of record with notice that a selection and implementation hearing for the two younger children would be held on August 12, 2010. In addition, mother was personally served at her new address of record with notice that a selection and implementation hearing for the five-year-old child would be held on October 28, 2010.
The permanent plan for the minors was adoption by a maternal great-aunt and uncle. All three minors were placed with the relatives.
Mother did not appear at the hearing on August 12, 2010, but an attorney appeared on her behalf. The juvenile court found that service on mother was proper. The selection and implementation hearing for the two younger children was continued to October 28, 2010, the date of the hearing for the five-year-old child. A copy of the order continuing the hearing for the younger children was mailed to mother at her address of record on Palm Avenue. On September 9, 2010, the juvenile court confirmed that notice had been provided to mother as required by law.
Mother did not appear at the hearing on October 28, 2010, but her attorney appeared. According to mother’s counsel, mother called the court on the morning of the hearing to say she would not be present. The attorney attempted to reach mother to find out why she would not be present, but could not reach her. Nonetheless, based on the attorney’s prior discussions with her client, the attorney asked the juvenile court to schedule a contested hearing. The juvenile court indicated that November 9, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., was available for the contested hearing, and all counsel agreed to that date and time. Mother’s counsel indicated she would call mother as a witness at the hearing. The juvenile court scheduled the contested hearing for November 9, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.
Mother’s counsel left a message for mother, but got no response. Counsel also e-mailed mother about the hearing date, a form of communication they had used in the past. In addition, on November 2, 2010, the court clerk mailed a copy of the order setting the contested hearing to mother’s address of record on Palm Avenue.
The juvenile court began the hearing on November 9, 2010, by asking the court clerk to describe a phone message from mother. The clerk said mother felt her due process was being violated. Mother informed the court for the first time that she was in Oregon and probably would not appear in court that day.
Mother’s counsel requested a continuance. The day before the hearing, mother responded to counsel’s e-mail, telling counsel she had just found out the date of the hearing and would not appear. Mother also informed counsel for the first time that she had moved to Oregon.
The juvenile court reviewed the file, spoke with all counsel, and concluded that mother was properly served at her address of record. The juvenile court determined that the statutory notice requirements were met and mother had not shown good cause for a continuance. The juvenile court added that counsel could ask for reconsideration if new facts were discovered.
Mother’s counsel argued at the hearing that mother wanted a permanent plan of guardianship, not adoption. The juvenile court found that the minors were likely to be adopted and ordered termination of parental rights.
That same day, mother’s counsel filed a new notification of mailing address for mother, changing mother’s address for service to Myrtle Point, Oregon. Subsequent notices were sent to mother in Oregon.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her counsel’s request to continue the contested hearing, because mother did not receive adequate notice of the hearing and she was prejudiced by her inability to appear and present evidence.
The juvenile court has discretion to continue a selection and implementation hearing. (In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694.) The exercise of the court’s discretion, however, is guided and limited by section 352, which provides: “Upon request of counsel for the parent, guardian, minor, or petitioner, the court may continue any hearing under this chapter beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held, provided that no continuance shall be granted that is contrary to the interest of the minor. In considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements. [¶] Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance....” (§ 352, subd. (a); see also § 294, subd. (l).)
Mother argues she demonstrated good cause for a continuance by establishing that she did not receive adequate notice of the contested hearing. But it was mother’s counsel who requested the contested hearing based on her prior discussions with mother, and mother’s counsel agreed to the date and time for the hearing. Mother’s counsel then left a message for mother and also e-mailed mother. Mother did not respond to either communication until the day before the hearing. Even when mother had received personal service of hearing notices, she had not appeared for the hearings.
Moreover, mother did not timely inform the juvenile court or her attorney that she had moved to Oregon. Her address of record leading up to the hearing was Palm Avenue in Sacramento. Mother was personally served with notice of the October 28 hearing (§ 294, subd. (f)(3)), and the juvenile court determined that notice was properly given to mother for that hearing. Section 294, subdivision (d), provides in relevant part that “once the court has made the initial finding that notice has properly been given to the parent, ... subsequent notice for any continuation of a Section 366.26 hearing may be by first class mail to any last known address....” The juvenile court scheduled the contested hearing as requested by mother’s counsel, and the court mailed a hearing notice to mother at her last known address on Palm Avenue.
The court told mother at the outset of the dependency proceedings that the address she designated would be used for mailing notices and that it was her responsibility to inform the court of any change in her address. (§ 316.1, subd. (a); In re Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 449-450.) Mother provided one address change but failed to do so when she moved to Oregon.
Section 316.1, subdivision (a) provides: “Upon his or her appearance before the court, each parent... shall designate for the court his or her permanent mailing address. The court shall advise each parent or guardian that the designated mailing address will be used by the court and the social services agency for notice purposes unless and until the parent... notifies the court or the social services agency of a new mailing address in writing.” (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.534(m) which specifies the preferred form for notification of a change of mailing address.).
Section 352 requires the juvenile court to consider the best interests of the children, including their interest in a prompt resolution to the proceedings. On this record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that mother failed to show good cause for a continuance.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court orders are affirmed. Appellant’s request for judicial notice was previously deferred and is now denied as unnecessary.
We concur: RAYE, P.J., BLEASE, J.