Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review, Super. Ct. No. 98J0043. George L. Orndoff, Judge,
Ivan. W. Packenham, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Peter D. Moock, County Counsel, and Bryan Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Cornell, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her son A. and daughter M. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
At a section 366.26 hearing in August 2007, the juvenile court ordered then 12-year-old M. and 11-year-old A. into long-term foster care. In February 2009, at a permanency plan review hearing, the court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption after the children’s foster parents expressed an interest in adopting them.
At the beginning of the review hearing, petitioner through her attorney made an oral request for a continuance. Petitioner’s attorney explained that petitioner had substantially changed her life and wanted to ask for reunification and visitation. She wanted to testify but did not believe she was physically able at that time.
Petitioner’s attorney called her to testify in support of her motion to continue the case. She testified she was having difficulty breathing, partly because of anxiety over permanently losing her children and partly because of a chest cold she had been suffering for three weeks and which was getting worse. She also testified she was being treated for cancer which was in remission. She believed she would be in a better position to testify if she were given a two-week continuance.
The juvenile court denied petitioner’s motion for a continuance and proceeded with the hearing. Petitioner testified that she was a full-time college student, studying drug counseling and was attending church. She stated she wanted the children returned to her custody and would faithfully follow any case plan ordered by the court.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in not granting her request for a continuance. We disagree.
The juvenile court may continue any dependency hearing upon a showing of good cause. (§ 352, subd. (a).) We review the court’s decision not to continue a hearing for abuse of discretion. (In re Ninfa S. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 808, 810-811.) Under the abuse of discretion standard, we will not overturn a juvenile court’s decision unless there is a clear showing the juvenile court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s request to continue the review hearing. Once adoption became a viable permanent plan for the children, the court had no option but to set a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.3, subd. (h).) Further, though petitioner may not have been feeling well, she failed to show she was too ill to testify and, in fact, did so without difficulty following the court’s denial of her motion to continue. Consequently, she failed to show good cause and the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling as it did. We find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.