Filed 8/2/13 P.A. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
P.A.,
Petitioner, E058526
v. (Super.Ct.No. J238206)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Judge Cheryl C.
Kersey. Petition is denied.
Friedland & Associates and Melvin Friedland for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Kristina M. Robb and Richard Van Frank,
Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
1 Petitioner P.A. seeks review of an order by the superior court terminating
reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26.1 Her sole legal challenge is that the trial court should have continued the
review hearing, at which she was not present allegedly due to health problems, until she
could attend. We find no abuse of discretion and deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF FACTS2
The minor, B.H., born August 1998, was being cared for by her legal guardian,
T.L., in April of 2011. However, the latter became drunk and abusive during an
“exchange/pick up” of B.H.3 and police were called. When interviewed by a social
worker for Children and Family Services (CFS), B.H. stated that her guardian was
physically and verbally abusive, and that she wished to live with a family friend,
petitioner P.A. P.A. then told the social worker that she was preparing guardianship
paperwork for B.H., and that she had been willing to care for the minor after her mother
died, but was superseded by family members. B.H. was first placed in foster care; the
trial court eventually found her to be a dependent child.
Eventually, after the matter was transferred to Los Angeles County (the county of
T.L.’s residence), T.L. was removed as the minor’s guardian. In August of 2011, B.H.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Due to the nature of the issue before us, only the briefest synopsis of the history of the case is necessary.
3The social worker’s report is far from clear, but apparently B.H. was going for a visit—or perhaps permanently—to her sister’s home.
2 was placed with P.A., who shortly thereafter obtained letters of guardianship. The social
worker observed that B.H.—who had known P.A. since she was seven—seemed very
close to her guardian. The case was then transferred back to San Bernardino County,
where P.A. resided.
At that time a brief report by the San Bernardino social worker indicated that B.H.
was “thriving” and reported that she was happy living with P.A., whom she referred to as
“Grandma.” The placement with P.A. was confirmed by the court. At the status review
hearing in March 2012, the court found that the placement remained appropriate; the
minor was “very happy” and was no longer exhibiting adjustment behaviors at school.
P.A. was monitoring her behavior and had arranged counseling.4
However, in June of 2012 a supplemental (§ 387) petition was filed in which CFS
alleged that P.A. had failed to contact CFS over a period of several weeks. It turned out
that P.A. and the minor were in the process of moving without having notified CFS, and
that in fact, at the moment, they were not living in the residence of record, but were
staying with P.A.’s daughter in a home shared by several other people. (None of whom,
of course, had been vetted by CFS.) It was apparent that P.A. was in a difficult situation
as the move is referred to as an “eviction,” but she confirmed her desire to continue to
care for B.H. B.H. complained of stress and stomach pains, but was receiving therapy.
4 B.H.’s health “passport” dated March 6, 2012, noted a history of “cutting” and setting fires. B.H. had right-sided deafness, needed glasses but had lost them, and was noted as being overweight.
3 Later in the day, however, the social worker was in the neighborhood and saw
B.H. walking on the street crying. P.A. had told her that she might have to go into foster
care and B.H. believed that this was because she “was bad.” P.A. did not respond to the
social worker’s attempts to contact her and appeared to be avoiding the social worker; she
had left the minor alone at the thrift store where P.A. worked. When P.A. did not return,
and when no relatives were both willing and qualified to take B.H., she was again placed
in foster care.
In the jurisdictional/dispositional report prepared in July 2012, the social worker
reported that B.H.’s stomach pains had disappeared and that she seemed happy to have
been allowed to visit her mother’s gravesite and to speak with an aunt, which P.A. had
not permitted. Once again, the court took jurisdiction over B.H. and reunification
services were ordered for P.A. She was to engage in parenting classes and counseling.
The next status report was filed in March 2013. The social worker reported that
there had been no contact from P.A. during the intervening period and there was no
indication that she was attempting to comply with the reunification plan. B.H. was
reported as doing well in school with no behavioral issues, and was in regular
communication with her aunt. The recommendation was that services to P.A. be
terminated due to her failure to participate.
The hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2013. P.A. was present and represented by
counsel. When the hearing began, it was noted by the court that the minor seemed upset
after speaking with P.A. outside the courtroom. She told the court that she wanted to go
back to P.A. and that “I’m closer to Ms. [P.A.] than I am to my foster parent.” When the
4 court asked about her visits with P.A., it turned out that there had been no visits although
there was an existing order permitting such visitation. This, in turn, led to a discussion
basically along the lines of “who was supposed to call whom?” The social worker told
the court that CFS was not necessarily opposed to continuing services to P.A., but the
worker had assumed that P.A. was no longer interested in reunifying.
The court was clearly skeptical about P.A.’s explanations, but agreed to continue
the hearing until April 11 for testimony or other evidence concerning P.A.’s alleged
attempts to contact the social worker.
On April 11, P.A. was not present. Counsel informed the court that he had spoken
with P.A. the day before and had been told that she had been briefly hospitalized after the
April 2 hearing and had been confined to her home since then.5 She had not been able to
predict a date when she would be able to come to court. Counsel therefore requested a
continuance.
The trial court noted that P.A. had been in a wheelchair at the April 2 hearing and
characterized her statements at that time as “evasive.” It also commented that a note
from P.A.’s doctor reflected that it was “difficult or impossible” for her to attend and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 8/2/13 P.A. v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
P.A.,
Petitioner, E058526
v. (Super.Ct.No. J238206)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Judge Cheryl C.
Kersey. Petition is denied.
Friedland & Associates and Melvin Friedland for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Kristina M. Robb and Richard Van Frank,
Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
1 Petitioner P.A. seeks review of an order by the superior court terminating
reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26.1 Her sole legal challenge is that the trial court should have continued the
review hearing, at which she was not present allegedly due to health problems, until she
could attend. We find no abuse of discretion and deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF FACTS2
The minor, B.H., born August 1998, was being cared for by her legal guardian,
T.L., in April of 2011. However, the latter became drunk and abusive during an
“exchange/pick up” of B.H.3 and police were called. When interviewed by a social
worker for Children and Family Services (CFS), B.H. stated that her guardian was
physically and verbally abusive, and that she wished to live with a family friend,
petitioner P.A. P.A. then told the social worker that she was preparing guardianship
paperwork for B.H., and that she had been willing to care for the minor after her mother
died, but was superseded by family members. B.H. was first placed in foster care; the
trial court eventually found her to be a dependent child.
Eventually, after the matter was transferred to Los Angeles County (the county of
T.L.’s residence), T.L. was removed as the minor’s guardian. In August of 2011, B.H.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Due to the nature of the issue before us, only the briefest synopsis of the history of the case is necessary.
3The social worker’s report is far from clear, but apparently B.H. was going for a visit—or perhaps permanently—to her sister’s home.
2 was placed with P.A., who shortly thereafter obtained letters of guardianship. The social
worker observed that B.H.—who had known P.A. since she was seven—seemed very
close to her guardian. The case was then transferred back to San Bernardino County,
where P.A. resided.
At that time a brief report by the San Bernardino social worker indicated that B.H.
was “thriving” and reported that she was happy living with P.A., whom she referred to as
“Grandma.” The placement with P.A. was confirmed by the court. At the status review
hearing in March 2012, the court found that the placement remained appropriate; the
minor was “very happy” and was no longer exhibiting adjustment behaviors at school.
P.A. was monitoring her behavior and had arranged counseling.4
However, in June of 2012 a supplemental (§ 387) petition was filed in which CFS
alleged that P.A. had failed to contact CFS over a period of several weeks. It turned out
that P.A. and the minor were in the process of moving without having notified CFS, and
that in fact, at the moment, they were not living in the residence of record, but were
staying with P.A.’s daughter in a home shared by several other people. (None of whom,
of course, had been vetted by CFS.) It was apparent that P.A. was in a difficult situation
as the move is referred to as an “eviction,” but she confirmed her desire to continue to
care for B.H. B.H. complained of stress and stomach pains, but was receiving therapy.
4 B.H.’s health “passport” dated March 6, 2012, noted a history of “cutting” and setting fires. B.H. had right-sided deafness, needed glasses but had lost them, and was noted as being overweight.
3 Later in the day, however, the social worker was in the neighborhood and saw
B.H. walking on the street crying. P.A. had told her that she might have to go into foster
care and B.H. believed that this was because she “was bad.” P.A. did not respond to the
social worker’s attempts to contact her and appeared to be avoiding the social worker; she
had left the minor alone at the thrift store where P.A. worked. When P.A. did not return,
and when no relatives were both willing and qualified to take B.H., she was again placed
in foster care.
In the jurisdictional/dispositional report prepared in July 2012, the social worker
reported that B.H.’s stomach pains had disappeared and that she seemed happy to have
been allowed to visit her mother’s gravesite and to speak with an aunt, which P.A. had
not permitted. Once again, the court took jurisdiction over B.H. and reunification
services were ordered for P.A. She was to engage in parenting classes and counseling.
The next status report was filed in March 2013. The social worker reported that
there had been no contact from P.A. during the intervening period and there was no
indication that she was attempting to comply with the reunification plan. B.H. was
reported as doing well in school with no behavioral issues, and was in regular
communication with her aunt. The recommendation was that services to P.A. be
terminated due to her failure to participate.
The hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2013. P.A. was present and represented by
counsel. When the hearing began, it was noted by the court that the minor seemed upset
after speaking with P.A. outside the courtroom. She told the court that she wanted to go
back to P.A. and that “I’m closer to Ms. [P.A.] than I am to my foster parent.” When the
4 court asked about her visits with P.A., it turned out that there had been no visits although
there was an existing order permitting such visitation. This, in turn, led to a discussion
basically along the lines of “who was supposed to call whom?” The social worker told
the court that CFS was not necessarily opposed to continuing services to P.A., but the
worker had assumed that P.A. was no longer interested in reunifying.
The court was clearly skeptical about P.A.’s explanations, but agreed to continue
the hearing until April 11 for testimony or other evidence concerning P.A.’s alleged
attempts to contact the social worker.
On April 11, P.A. was not present. Counsel informed the court that he had spoken
with P.A. the day before and had been told that she had been briefly hospitalized after the
April 2 hearing and had been confined to her home since then.5 She had not been able to
predict a date when she would be able to come to court. Counsel therefore requested a
continuance.
The trial court noted that P.A. had been in a wheelchair at the April 2 hearing and
characterized her statements at that time as “evasive.” It also commented that a note
from P.A.’s doctor reflected that it was “difficult or impossible” for her to attend and
participate, which it interpreted as also supporting the conclusion that she could not
participate in services. It therefore denied any continuance and proceeded to set the
hearing under section 366.26.
5It was indicated that she thought she might have had a stroke, as she had previously, but counsel reported that “it was a heart valve that had closed.”
5 P.A. asserts that this refusal was error justifying the issuance of a writ of mandate.
We disagree.
DISCUSSION
Procedural law in general places the decision of whether or not to grant a
continuance squarely in the court’s discretion. (See, e.g., People v. Riccardi (2012) 54
Cal.4th 758, 834; Freeman v. Sullivant (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 523, 527.) Abuse of
discretion will normally only be found if the denial results in the absence of a fair
hearing. (In re Marriage of Johnson (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 148, 155.) With respect to
dependency proceedings, section 352 specifically sets out the requirement that the
moving party show good cause for delay, and limits the length of any continuance to
“that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence . . . .” In conformity with the
general rule, the abuse of discretion standard applies. (In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th
129, 143-144 (In re B.C.).)
Section 352 also requires a written motion on two days’ notice “unless the court
for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” As CFS argues, there was no
such motion. However, we think CFS’s reliance on In re B.C. for the conclusion that the
request was properly denied as untimely is misplaced.
First, the trial court did not base its denial on the lack of a written motion, but
clearly considered P.A.’s request on the merits. Nor was there any abuse of discretion in
so doing, as counsel was not clearly dilatory in not calling P.A. until the day before the
hearing. Arguably, P.A. should have been proactive in notifying him of her current
restrictions; but, in contrast to the situation in In re B.C., the requested continuance was
6 not plainly designed for a tangentially strategic reason.6 We think the trial court
reasonably considered the application on its merits.
However, we also find that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the request on
the merits. It had already had the benefit of hearing and evaluating P.A.’s representations
at the April 2 hearing and observing her physical condition at that time. P.A. was not
able to provide any timeline for her ability to return to court (and, by inference, to
participate in reunification services). While the establishment of permanency is
obviously not as critical for a minor in her midteens such as B.H., delay cannot be in a
minor’s best interests if there is no realistic chance that it will offer a superior alternative.
P.A. argues that the minor’s statements at the April 2 hearing to the effect that she
wanted to return to P.A. should have led the court to do anything possible to see that this
happened. But the reason we have courts and judges in these matters is that children do
not always know or understand what is in their “best interests,” and even when their
wishes must be considered, they do not control. (See In re Alexis W. (1999) 71
Cal.App.4th 28, 36.)
We do not doubt, from the record before us, that B.H. and P.A. are genuinely fond
of each other, and even if the minor is not returned to P.A.’s custody at the section 366.26
6 In In re B.C., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at pp. 134, 145, the court found that the last-minute request for a continuance was intended to give time for the minor’s mother to complete a voluntary relinquishment designating a specified relative as proposed adopter. (Fam. Code, § 8700, subd. (f).) Such a relinquishment, if completed before the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, would have placed the mother’s preference in an advantageous position compared to the dependency proceedings; the minor at the time was in a prospective adoptive home selected by the county authorities.
7 hearing, it is to be hoped that the relationship can be maintained and encouraged. A child
can never have too many loving and concerned adults in his or her life. However, the
record also reflects that P.A.’s ability to provide care for the minor is problematic.
In summary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an open-ended
continuance, especially as P.A. had already presented explanations for her failure to
participate in services or visit the minor.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of mandate is denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.