Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Martin W. Staven, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tulare County S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Super. Ct. No. EJ517488A-C.
McCONNELL, P. J.
The children, S.D., T.D. and D.D., appeal from orders denying their requests for a continuance of a family maintenance review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364 and terminating jurisdiction. We affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
E.T. is the mother of five children. This proceeding concerns three of her children, sons S.D. and T.D., now 14 and 13 years old respectively, and daughter D.D., now 10 years old. E.T.'s other children are not in her care. The children's alleged father is incarcerated on charges he sexually molested D.D.
The family has a history of child welfare referrals dating from 1998. S.D. is mildly to severely developmentally delayed. In 2007 and 2008, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) offered voluntary services to the family. The Agency closed the case as "failed" because E.T. did not adequately address D.D.'s therapeutic needs or S.D.'s special needs.
In April 2009, S.D. disclosed that his mother hit him with a belt. He had old linear scars, bruises and scratches in various states of healing on his back and chest. His mother and siblings denied physical abuse. The juvenile court detained the children in protective custody.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed the children with their mother under a plan of family maintenance services. E.T. completed a parenting class. She agreed to participate in an Intensive Family Preservation Program (IFPP) and seek services for S.D. through the San Diego Regional Center (Regional Center).
In November 2009, the social worker reported that the risk to the children remained high due to the family's child welfare history and lack of participation in services. IFPP had closed its case as unsuccessful. After the Regional Center completed its assessment of S.D., E.T. refused to participate in services. Eleven-year-old T.D. was suspended from school for possession of narcotics. The social worker recommended the family participate in Families Forward in-home wraparound services and community resources.
During a visit to the family home in November, the social worker smelled alcohol on E.T. E.T. admitted to alcohol, Vicodin and marijuana use. She refused to submit to a drug test.
The juvenile court continued the 12-month review hearing four times for various reasons. The social worker filed reports in May, July, August and September.
In May the social worker reported that E.T. met the children's basic needs for food, clothing and shelter, and their home was always clean. E.T. did not understand S.D.'s special needs and did not make any effort to participate in school meetings or Regional Center services. The Agency was concerned about the children's poor school attendance and E.T.'s unwillingness to participate in educational and special needs services.
E.T. said she was newly married to "[T.B.]." She would not provide any other information about him to the social worker and said she did not know how to spell his name. The children said T.B. was not living at the home and might be in jail.
In July the social worker observed an altercation between S.D. and T.D. during a home visit. E.T. swore at the children and told the social worker "kids need to have their asses beat." The social worker noted that E.T. refused to participate in in-home services and would not change the way she parented her children. Her use of threats of physical force as a form of discipline and inability to redirect the children's behaviors placed the children at risk of further abuse. The social worker said further Agency involvement would not improve the family's circumstances and recommended the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction.
In August the social worker reported that E.T. was in contact with the Regional Center. The social worker recommended the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction because there was no indication of abuse or neglect in the home. Although E.T. struggled financially, she provided for her children's basic needs and maintained a clean, physically safe home.
In the final report prepared for the review hearing, the social worker stated there were no current safety risks in the home and recommended the juvenile court terminate jurisdiction. E.T. reluctantly provided her husband's name, L.P., and his date of birth. A man by that name and birth date had a child welfare history for domestic violence. E.T. said her husband was in custody for a parole violation. The social worker reported that L.P.'s whereabouts were unclear. In her report, the social worker included a copy of a March 2010 police dispatch in which a male reported that his wife, E.T., attacked him with a knife. Police contacted a family member at the home who said he was watching the children and was not aware of any problems.
When the review hearing began, S.D.'s counsel requested a continuance to allow time to investigate the allegations in the most recent report. She received the report shortly before the hearing started. E.T.'s husband was identified for the first time. When she spoke to her client, S.D. indicated L.P. was in the home and there was fighting and police activity. Counsel for T.D. and D.D. joined in the motion for a continuance.
The juvenile court received a document indicating L.P. was arrested on a parole violation and was released from local to state custody in April 2010. The court denied the children's motion for a continuance. The court admitted in evidence the Agency's reports dated May 17, July 7, August 19 and September 27, and a copy of S.D.'s Regional Center program plan.
The social worker testified that her recommendation to terminate jurisdiction was based on E.T.'s participation in therapy and a parenting program, S.D.'s involvement in Regional Center services and the children's reports about the conditions in the home. E.T. was working with the Regional Center to better manage S.D.'s behaviors. There were no recent allegations of inappropriate discipline by E.T. With respect to E.T.'s threats to use physical force to discipline her children, the social worker said she and E.T. discussed the issue, and E.T. received counseling from in-home services and the Regional Center about alternative discipline methods. E.T. made sure the children attended school and was involved in developing S.D.'s individualized education plan.
The social worker acknowledged E.T. did not identify her husband until the week before the review hearing. When she last visited the home, the social worker did not see any adult male clothing or any other evidence there was an adult male living in the home. She was not aware of L.P.'s criminal history. L.P. was named in an open voluntary dependency case for another child, involving domestic violence. The social worker assigned to that case did not have any information about L.P.'s whereabouts.
The juvenile court found that there was no evidence to show that L.P. lived in the family home. Although E.T. initially resisted services, she participated in therapy and involved S.D. with Regional Center services. The court issued custody orders and terminated jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
A
The Parties' Contentions on Appeal
The children contend the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied their motion for a continuance of the 12-month review hearing. The children argue the social worker's report was untimely and, without a continuance, minors' counsel could not perform their duties under section 317, subdivision (b), which requires them to "make or cause any further investigation that he or she deems in good faith to be reasonably necessary to ascertain the facts." The children argue the unresolved safety concerns about their mother's husband and an alleged incident of domestic violence constituted good cause to continue the hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a).) The children also contend there is not substantial evidence to support the court's order terminating jurisdiction.
Appellate counsel for T.D. and D.D., and appellate counsel for S.D., join in each other's briefs. D.D.'s father, Robin D., joins in the argument the court abused its discretion when it denied the motion for a continuance.
E.T. asserts the children have not met their burden to show that the juvenile court acted arbitrarily when it denied their motion for a continuance. She argues minors' counsel had more than four months to investigate her new marriage and her husband's circumstances, including any allegations of domestic violence. E.T. further contends there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings and orders terminating jurisdiction.
The Agency acknowledges the juvenile court may have reasonably granted a continuance of the review hearing or maintained its jurisdiction but argues the court's findings and orders must be affirmed under standards of appellate review. The Agency notes minors' counsel did not request a stay of the order terminating jurisdiction at the trial court level and did not file a petition for writ of supersedeas. The Agency argues minors' counsel failure to do so is inconsistent with the children's contention further investigation was important to their safety.
In view of the contentions on appeal, we, too, are puzzled by the lack of a request by minors' counsel to stay the order terminating jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the children's request for a continuance of the review hearing. We also conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's findings and orders terminating jurisdiction of the children's dependency cases.
B
The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied the Children's Motions for a Continuance of the Review Hearing
Continuances are discouraged in dependency cases. (In re Elijah V. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 576, 585.) Section 352, subdivision (a) states, "[N]o 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...." (In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 604.)
We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. (In re Elijah V., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 585.) The reviewing court gives broad deference to the juvenile court's decision. It should interfere only if it finds that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the ruling, no juvenile court could reasonably have made that ruling. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351.)
S.D.'s counsel, joined by counsel for T.D. and D.D., requested a continuance of the review hearing on the grounds that without additional time, she could not fulfill her duties under section 317 to investigate L.P.'s criminal background, the nature of his involvement in an open dependency case, his expected release date and presence in the family home, and review the full police report concerning the March 2010 domestic violence incident.
Section 317, subdivision (e), requires the counsel for the child to "make or cause to have made any further investigations that he or she deems in good faith to be reasonably necessary to ascertain the facts, including the interviewing of witnesses.... In addition counsel shall investigate the interests of the child beyond the scope of the juvenile proceeding and report to the court other interests of the child that may need to be protected by the institution of other administrative or judicial proceedings."
The children do not meet their burden to show that the juvenile court clearly abused its discretion when it denied their motion for a continuance of the review hearing. The record shows the children had been placed with E.T. for 16 months. The social worker visited the home regularly. She stated there were no current safety risks in the home. The children were attending school, the home was clean and safe, and there were no recent allegations of inappropriate physical discipline, neglect or abuse. L.P. was transferred from local to state custody in April 2010 on a parole violation. There was no evidence he was living in the home.
The juvenile court had continued the review hearing four times. The review hearing was originally scheduled for May 17, 2010, and ultimately held on September 27. Minors' counsel had sufficient time to conduct their investigation into the children's circumstances. In May, the social worker reported that E.T. was married. In her respondent's brief, E.T. points out that minors' counsel did not raise the issue the children's safety required further investigation into L.P.'s circumstances at any of the pretrial status conferences that were held in May, July and August. Minors' counsel did not ask the court to order E.T. to identify her husband at any of the earlier proceedings. On this record, the children do not show that it was in their best interests to delay the review hearing for a fifth time on concerns that L.P.'s presence in the home at some undetermined future date would create a substantial risk of harm that would justify the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300. (See, § 364, subd. (c).)
New counsel for the minors were appointed on July 7, 2010.
We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when, giving substantial weight to the children's needs for prompt resolution of their custody status, and the speculative nature of minors' counsel's concerns, it determined that continuing the review hearing was not in the children's best interests. (§ 352; Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242 [continuances are expressly discouraged in juvenile court and should be difficult to obtain].)
C
There Is Substantial Evidence to Support the Orders Terminating Jurisdiction
When a dependent child is not removed from parental custody, the juvenile court is required to hold a review hearing every six months to determine whether continued supervision is necessary. (§ 364, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The court is required to terminate its jurisdiction unless conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300, or those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. (§ 364, subd. (c).)
We review the trial court's findings for substantial evidence. We do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. The judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) The appellant has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
Based on her assessment of the family's circumstances, the social worker stated E.T. was "meeting the minimal sufficient level of care for her children...." She provided for her children's basic needs and maintained a clean, physically safe home. Although she was concerned about E.T.'s threats to use physical force to discipline the children, the social worker did not observe any indication E.T. was in fact abusing or neglecting the children.
E.T. and the children said L.P. was not living in the home. E.T. said L.P. was incarcerated on a parole violation for a year. The social worker recently visited the home and did not see any signs of an adult male living there. Further, there is no evidence in the record to indicate the police substantiated the March 2010 report of domestic violence. The children's babysitter told the investigating officer he had been in the home that day with the children and was not aware of any problems.
S.D. contends if dependency jurisdiction is terminated, he will once again be isolated from school and Regional Center services, and be placed at substantial risk of harm. He contends the termination of jurisdiction contravenes the legislative directive to focus on the safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being of the neglected or abused child (§ 300.2), and notes that the juvenile court may order child-centered services and supervision to the family until he reaches the age of majority (In re Joel T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 263, 267-268).
The record shows that S.D. was receiving Regional Center services. E.T. was working with the Regional Center to address S.D.'s difficult behaviors in the home. For example, after S.D.'s school expressed concern about S.D.'s hygiene, E.T. implemented a Regional Center suggestion to put a radio in the bathroom to allow S.D. to listen to music while he bathed. The suggestion appeared to be successful. E.T. learned that she needed to direct S.D. with short, brief instructions and wait for him to respond to her requests. E.T. completed a parenting class, participated in individual therapy and received counseling about alternative discipline methods.
The social worker stated there were no current safety risks in the home. She regularly visited the family. The children had been in E.T.'s care for 16 months and wanted to live with her. S.D. was receiving Regional Center services commensurate with his special needs. Although the juvenile court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence, there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that the conditions that justified the initial assumption of jurisdiction did not, and were not likely to, exist if supervision was withdrawn. (§ 364, subd. (c).)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., McINTYRE, J.