Opinion
F087016
12-11-2023
C.T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Law Office of Paula Guerra and Paula Guerra for Petitioner. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. (Super. Ct. No. JD134632-02) Susan M. Gill, Judge.
Law Office of Paula Guerra and Paula Guerra for Petitioner.
Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Petitioner, C.P. (mother), seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested disposition hearing denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now eight-year-old daughter, S.R. (the child). Mother contends that the juvenile court committed reversible error when it denied her trial counsel's request to continue the disposition hearing. We find no error in the court's orders and deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Initial Removal and Disposition
These dependency proceedings were initiated in June 2021, when the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) received a referral alleging mother cut the child and her siblings with a knife and burned them to ward off demons. Mother was arrested and the child was taken into protective custody. The department filed a dependency petition on the child's behalf, alleging under section 300, subdivision (b) that mother's untreated mental illness placed the child at a substantial risk of harm. It further alleged she was incarcerated and left the child without support and previously neglected her siblings. (§ 300, subds. (g) &(j).) The child's father, S.R. (father), was incarcerated in state prison.
The juvenile court ordered the child detained in June 2021, ordered the department to provide services as soon as possible and ordered supervised visitation for mother and father. At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing in November 2021, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for mother and continued the hearing to January 2022. The juvenile court conducted a jurisdictional hearing on January 19, 2022, sustained the allegations, adjudged the child a dependent of the court and set the dispositional hearing for March 2022.
The court appointed Drs. Gary Longwith and Carol Matthews to perform psychological evaluations of mother and determine whether she had a mental health disability that rendered her unable to benefit from reunification services. The evaluations were conducted in May 2022. Dr. Longwith and Dr. Matthews opined that mother was not likely to benefit from reunification services.
In a supplemental report prepared in June 2022 for the dispositional hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court deny mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2) based on the results of her psychological evaluations and under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) because she was incarcerated and unable to reunify within the statutory timeframe. The department also recommended against ordering reunification services for father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).
Mother appeared out-of-custody at the contested dispositional hearing on November 15, 2022. The juvenile court did not order reunification services to mother or father, but there were no findings made pursuant to section 361.5 subdivisions (b) or (e)(1). The court ordered the child removed from mother's custody and set a section 366.26 hearing.
Prior Petition for Extraordinary Writ Relief
Mother filed her first petition for extraordinary writ to challenge the order denying her family reunification services. We granted the writ in an unpublished decision after concluding the juvenile court erroneously denied reunification services to mother because it determined she exceeded the statutory limit on services prior to the disposition hearing. (C.T. v. Superior Court of Kern County (Mar. 2, 2023, F085283).) Our writ directed the juvenile court to "conduct a new dispositional hearing and, after taking into consideration any new evidence or change in circumstances, make any appropriate orders." (C.T. at p. 747.)
Proceedings After Remand
On March 14, 2023, the juvenile court vacated its section 366.26 hearing, and a new dispositional hearing was set for May 8, 2023. The remittitur issued on April 3, 2023. On May 8, 2023, the disposition hearing was continued to June 30, 2023, due to the absence of a disposition report, and there was still an ongoing investigation into the family's circumstances by the department.
In its new disposition report, dated June 27, 2023, the department recommended that mother be denied family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). Mother was incarcerated in a pretrial facility. On May 24, 2023, mother informed the social worker that she was sentenced to two years in state prison. Mother had 185 days of custody credits with 93 days for time served and 92 days for good behavior. She would be transferred to a state prison. The report indicated that mother still had one and a half years of her sentence to complete, but mother claimed she would be released in November 2023. Mother wanted to receive family reunification services and reunify with the child and her siblings.
The child was moved to a new resource family home on May 16, 2023, due to conflict with her previous care provider. She was developing on target for her age with no medical concerns noted at a recent physical. Mental health counseling services were being provided to the child, and she was having behavioral issues at school. Her current caregiver stated that she would like to adopt the child. In January 2023, the social worker supervised a visit between mother, the child, and her sibling. The child watched videos, danced, and ate food during the visit, and no concerns were noted. There were no visits between mother and the child after mother was arrested on February 20, 2023, because the child refused to visit mother either in jail or through video conferencing.
On June 16, 2023, the department social worker spoke to a social worker at the state prison facility where mother would be incarcerated. The facility social worker explained that inmates could not be offered any services until a 90-day evaluation period was completed. After the 90-day period, the inmates either remain at the facility or get transferred to another facility. There were self-help groups, substance abuse treatment classes, cognitive behavioral intervention, Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous, alternative to violence classes, and other classes. Mother would be assigned to different classes according to her needs once she was assigned to a correctional counselor.
On June 30, 2023, mother was not present for the continued disposition hearing because she was recently transferred to a state prison facility. Mother's counsel requested a continuance to make sure mother was available and based upon the recommendation to bypass reunification services for mother. The juvenile court granted mother's request, and a continued disposition hearing was set for August 17, 2023.
Mother was in custody and present via phone for the continued disposition hearing held on August 17, 2023. Mother's counsel requested a continuance of the hearing based upon her receipt of new information that mother could be released in October 2023, which was received from the family services coordinator at mother's facility. Mother's coordinator appeared by phone and informed the juvenile court and parties that mother would be provided a definitive release date by early September 2023. Mother represented that her current release date was February 21, 2024, but she would be receiving custody credits that would be calculated by a committee. The court granted mother's request for continuance due to the representation that mother could be released in October 2023.
On September 29, 2023, the juvenile court held a continued disposition hearing with mother in custody and present by phone. Mother's counsel requested that the disposition hearing be continued past October 3, 2023, because a committee would be meeting to decide mother's actual release date on that date. Mother was moved to a new facility, and her counsel indicated that the previous information about her release date was no longer accurate. The court continued the disposition hearing without objection from the parties to October 5, 2023.
On October 5, 2023, the department filed a supplemental report that included details of an email correspondence from a correctional counselor at mother's facility. The correspondence explained that mother's earliest release date from the facility was February 21, 2024, but mother's release date could be further reduced if additional information was received from other Kern County agencies. The report included no other new information, and it reiterated the analysis and recommended findings and orders from the previous report.
The continued disposition hearing was held on October 5, 2023, and mother appeared in custody by phone. Mother's counsel requested a continuance based upon her receipt of the supplemental report on that same morning. The juvenile court indicated that it was willing to disregard the late report that contained mother's current release date. Mother's counsel then stated she would be requesting a continuance because mother was informed that a decision from the committee affecting mother's release date would be received in seven to 10 days. Her counsel then stated, "So I'll leave that decision up to the Court. My request is still going to be to ask for a continuance on a different basis, if not on the late report." Mother's counsel then clarified that mother "should have an update on her out date 7 to 14 days from her committee day which was on October 3."
The juvenile court denied mother's request for continuance on either basis. After hearing argument from counsel, the court denied family reunification services to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1), and a section 366.26 hearing was set for January 24, 2024.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court committed reversible error when it denied her counsel's request to continue the disposition hearing for additional information that may have impacted the date that she would be released from her present incarceration.
A. Legal Principles
Section 352, subdivision (a)(1) provides that a juvenile court "may continue any hearing under this chapter beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held, provided that a continuance shall not 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 are expressly discouraged in the juvenile court and "should be difficult to obtain." (Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242.) The dependency statutes consistently encourage courts to accelerate proceedings, so the child is not kept"' "in limbo" '" any longer than is absolutely necessary. (§ 352; In re Emily L. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 734, 739.) The moving party has the burden to demonstrate good cause for a requested continuance. (See Evid. Code, §§ 500, 550, subd. (b).)
Except on a finding of exceptional circumstances, when a minor has been removed from his or her parents' custody, a juvenile court may not grant a continuance that would cause the dispositional hearing to be completed over 60 days after the hearing at which the minor was ordered removed or detained. (§ 352, subd. (b).) "Further, the court may not, under any circumstances, grant continuances that would cause the disposition hearing to be completed more than six months after the detention hearing." (Renee S. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 187, 196.)
B. Standard of Review
The juvenile court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a continuance. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1187.) As a reviewing court, we can reverse an order denying a continuance "only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion." (Gerald J., supra, at p. 1187.)"' "The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." '" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, a court's ruling will not be disturbed unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. (Id. at p. 318.)
C. Analysis
Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her motion to continue the dispositional hearing in order to obtain "crucial information" about her tentative release date that would have helped her overcome the bypass provision pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). The department argues that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in light of the child's need for prompt resolution.
The juvenile court ordered the child initially detained in June 2021. The child's original disposition hearing was conducted in November 2022, which exceeded the statutory maximum period for holding disposition by almost one year. (See § 352, subd. (b).) On April 3, 2023, the remittitur was issued following extraordinary writ proceedings, which directed the juvenile court to conduct a new dispositional hearing. In May 2023, the child was moved to a new resource family home due to behavioral issues.
The May 8, 2023, disposition hearing was continued due to the department's need for additional investigation to prepare the disposition report. The June 30, 2023, hearing was continued at mother's request, and it was based upon the department's recommendation to bypass reunification services to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). The August 17, 2023, disposition hearing was continued at mother's request, and it was based upon her representation that she would be provided a new release date in early September 2023. At that hearing, mother's counsel represented that she could be released in October 2023. The September 29, 2023, disposition hearing was also continued at mother's request. The continuance was granted based upon representations that new information about her release date would be available after October 3, 2023.
At the time of the October 5, 2023, disposition hearing, the juvenile court had allowed mother to continue the hearing on three separate occasions. Over the course of those three months, mother's continued representations that she would be provided an early release date remained unsubstantiated. The child had already remained in out-of-home care for 29 months, and she experienced a disruption in her placement in the last six months. Although the child's new care provider expressed a desire to adopt her shortly after her placement in the home, this did not eliminate the continued uncertainty that the child faced. The child's circumstances presented a heightened need for permanency given the 29 months needed to complete the disposition phase of the dependency proceedings.
Since the child had been detained far more than 60 days, the juvenile court could not grant the continuance unless it found that there were "exceptional circumstances." (§ 352, subd. (b).) The continuance would have also extended the time period for the new disposition hearing for more than six months beyond the date of the remittitur. The circumstances were far from exceptional after mother's initial representations that she would receive a new release date in September 2023 failed to materialize. In light of the extended length of time since the child's initial detention, coupled with previous continuances already provided to mother, the juvenile court acted well within its discretion by denying mother's fourth request to continue the dispositional hearing.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The request for a stay of the section 366.26 hearing is also denied. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).
[*] Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Snauffer, J.