1

Filed 8/3/20

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re M.P. et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 No. B306181

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 18CCJP08047A–B)

 

 

D.P. et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent,

THE DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. 

Emma Castro, Commissioner. Granted.
2

Law Office of Jolene Metzger and Jason Steinberg for 

Petitioner D.P.

Law Office of Thomas Hayes and Sue P. Dell for Petitioner 

A.P.

Children’s Law Center of California and Michael T. Ono for 

Petitioner Am.P.

Children’s Law Center of California and Stacie Hendrix for 

Petitioner M.P.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, and Peter A. Ferrera, 

Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Real Party 

in Interest.

Clyde & Co US and Douglas J. Collodel for Respondent.

_________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the 

Governor of California and the Chief Justice of the California 

Supreme Court issued a series of orders that permit the 

extension of time within which certain hearings must occur. 

Here, petitioner, D.P. (father), joined by A.P. (mother), M.P. and

Am.P. (children), and the Los Angeles County Department of

Children and Family Services (Department) contend the juvenile 

court erred in continuing a hearing six months beyond the time 

period allowed by statute as modified by emergency order. We 

agree and grant the petition.
3

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The juvenile court declared the children dependents of the 

court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 Initially, 

the court removed the children from parental custody. On 

October 9, 2019, however, the court ordered the children released 

to mother with monitored visitation by father. On November 14, 

2019, as required by section 364, the court set a review hearing 

for six months later, on May 14, 2020, in order for the court to 

determine whether continued jurisdiction was necessary. As of 

April 28, 2020, the children remained with their mother and, 

according to the Department, were doing well. The Department 

recommended “that jurisdiction be terminated with Family Law 

Order in place,” and that the court grant joint legal custody to the 

parents, primary physical custody to mother, and monitored 

visitation by father. Because the juvenile court was operating in 

a very limited capacity at the time, the May 14, 2020, hearing 

was continued to a later date.

On March 4, 2020, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 

virus, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency.2

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared 

1 Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

except where otherwise stated.

2 Executive Department State of California Proclamation of a 

State of Emergency <https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOEProclamation.pdf> [as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at 

<https://perma.cc/W85V-VLNF>.
4

COVID-19 a pandemic.3 On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom 

issued an executive order directing all Californians not providing 

essential services to stay at home.4 The order did not close the 

courts, which are considered an essential service.

Kevin C. Brazile, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court for 

the County of Los Angeles, issued a general order on 

March 17, 2020, providing that all courtrooms would remain 

closed for judicial business beginning March 20, 2020, with the 

exception of specified “time-sensitive, essential functions.” 

“Time-sensitive, essential functions” included juvenile 

arraignment and detention hearings, but not section 364 review 

hearings. The order also provided: “NOTICE IS HEREBY 

GIVEN THAT ALL OTHER MATTERS WILL BE

CONTINUED BY THE COURT.”5

3 WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media 

briefing on COVID-19 — 11 March 2020

<https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-sopening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march2020> [as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/HB3PY3ZU>.

4 Executive Department State of California Executive Order 

N-33-20 <https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/3.19.20-attested-EO-N-33-20-COVID-19-

HEALTH-ORDER.pdf> [as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at 

<https://perma.cc/4BQN-4MR7>.

5 Our record includes two different versions of this order. 

One states that “ALL OTHER MATTERS WILL BE 

CONTINUED” and another states that “ALL OTHER MATTERS 
5

In a statewide order issued on March 23, 2020, Chief 

Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye recognized that the COVID-19 

virus would severely impact the state courts’ operations.6

Thus, pursuant to her authority under the California 

Constitution, article VI, section 6, and Government Code section 

68115, the Chief Justice issued a statewide order that authorized 

superior courts to adopt proposed rules or rule amendments to 

address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to take effect 

immediately, without advance circulation for 45 days of public 

comment.

On March 27, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive 

order acknowledging that “the Judicial Branch retains extensive 

authority, statutory and otherwise, to manage its own operations 

as it deems appropriate to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.” 

(Exec. Ord. No. N-38-20.)7 “The order suspended any limitations 

in Government Code section 68115 or any other provision of law 

that limited the Judicial Council’s ability to issue emergency 

HAVE BEEN CONTINUED.” That distinction is not material for 

purposes of this opinion.

6 Judicial Council of California Statewide Order 

<https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom

.com.s3.amazonaws.com/262/files/20202/Statewide%20Order%20

by%20the%20Chief%20JusticeChair%20of%20the%20Judicial%20Council%203-23-2020.pdf> 

[as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/UF9V-2X58>.

7 Executive Department State of California Executive Order 

N-38-20 <https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/3.27.20-N-38-20.pdf> [as of 

Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/8L2Q-7J7Y>.
6

orders or rules, and suspended statutes that may be inconsistent 

with rules the Judicial Council may adopt.” (Stanley v. Superior 

Court (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 164, 167–168.)

Acting on that authority, on April 6, 2020, the Judicial 

Council issued emergency rules. Emergency rule 6 addresses 

juvenile dependency proceedings and provides that “[a] court may 

hold any proceeding under this rule via remote technology 

consistent with [California Rules of Court,] rule 5.531 and 

[E]mergency rule 3 [which permits courts to ‘require that judicial 

proceedings and court operations be conducted remotely’].” It 

further provides, with exceptions not applicable here: “If a court 

hearing cannot occur either in the courthouse or remotely, the 

hearing may be continued up to 60 days . . . .” (Emergency 

rule 6(c)(6).) The rule remains in effect “until 90 days after the 

Governor declares that the state of emergency related to the 

COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or repealed by 

the Judicial Council.” (Emergency rule 6(d).) The Governor has 

not declared the state of emergency lifted and Emergency rule 6 

has not been amended or repealed. Emergency rule 6(c)(6) 

authorized the juvenile court to continue the May 14, 2020, 

hearing at issue to not later than July 13, 2020. As discussed 

below, the court continued the hearing to a date more than six 

months beyond July 13, 2020.

On April 9, 2020, Victor H. Greenberg, Presiding Judge of 

the juvenile courts in Los Angeles County, issued a memorandum

to juvenile court dependency judges discussing dependency cases 

and continuances. Judge Greenberg explained that in order to 

“protect the health and safety of litigants, attorneys, justice 

partners, staff and the bench,” Judge Brazile had extended 

existing operational limits until an anticipated reopening date of 
7

June 22, 2020. Because the court would continue to perform only 

essential functions until reopening, it was necessary to calendar 

nonessential matters for a date beyond June 22. Judge 

Greenberg recognized that “given the likelihood that strict social 

distancing guidelines will continue to be necessary, as well as the 

backlogs created during our period of limited operations, it is not 

feasible to expect an immediate return to normal operations. In 

addition, while the juvenile courts were fortunate to move quickly 

to remote hearing capability, the capacity of the court to expand 

development, support, and implementation of such services is 

limited by available resources.”

Judge Greenberg further explained efforts to prioritize 

dependency cases: “Beyond [e]ssential [h]earings, we have 

endeavored to prioritize hearings in which the court makes 

factual determinations regarding allegations of illegal activity, 

abuse and neglect, in order to provide for due process and the 

safety of youth, children and our communities. We have further 

focused upon those hearings where release from detention, return 

home, or the establishment of a permanent plan is under 

consideration. In making these decisions, we have necessarily 

been forced to deem situations in which youth and children are 

stable and not at risk as less urgent, and to rely to a greater 

degree upon our justice partners to provide proper care, 

supervision, oversight, and identification of emergent issues.” 

Judge Greenberg directed juvenile judicial officers to continue 

immediately all non-essential matters calendared before 

June 22, 2020, in accordance with a prioritization schedule set 

forth in the memorandum. That schedule set priorities by the 

type of statutory hearing to be held, which bore only a rough 

approximation to the urgency of any concerns with a child’s 
8

welfare in a particular case. Judge Greenberg also advised that 

“[i]f you have a particular Non-Essential hearing that you believe 

must be heard outside the Prioritization Schedule, you must 

receive approval from [one of three supervising judges].”

On April 14, 2020, Judge Greenberg modified the 

prioritization schedule. In a further memorandum to dependency 

judicial officers, Judge Greenberg estimated that, despite efforts 

to hear essential matters remotely, more than 30,000 hearings 

would have to be continued prior to the anticipated June 22 

reopening of the juvenile court. He anticipated “additional 

potential backlogs after June 22 as we reopen to the extent social 

distancing allows.” With respect to section 364 review hearings, 

Judge Greenberg directed they be continued to a date within 220

to 270 days after the expected June 22 reopening.

Consistent with Judge Greenberg’s directive, on 

April 29, 2020, Commissioner Emma Castro held a 

nonappearance progress report hearing and continued the 

May 14, 2020, hearing in this case for 220 days, more than eight 

months, to January 28, 2021. The minute order states: “Given 

the recently declared national state of emergency related to the 

COVID[-]19 pandemic, and the directives from Governor 

Newsom, health officials and court leadership, matters are to be 

continued. Good cause existing, this matter is continued to [the] 

date, and time indicated [below].” There is no evidence any party 

had an opportunity to object. This is the order challenged in this 

writ proceeding.
9

In June 2020, the Judicial Council’s Pandemic Continuity 

of Operations Working Group issued a Resource Guide (Guide).8 

The Guide provides guidance to courts on case management “as 

they continue to hear essential matters and expand operations to 

include additional judicial proceedings.” (Guide, p. 56, italics 

omitted.) With respect to physical resources, the Guide advises: 

“Assess the availability of physical facility resources, staff 

resources, financial resources, and judicial resources to ensure 

that proceedings meet required constitutional and statutory 

standards as well as health and safety requirements.” (Id. at

p. 58.) Concerning caseload, the Guide suggests that courts 

identify criteria for prioritizing cases and develop backlog 

processing criteria including: “[p]rioritizing cases that had 

existing dates scheduled,” “[a]ssessing cases that are sensitive in 

nature and require immediate attention,” “[e]valuating cases that 

could not be absorbed into existing calendars,” “[c]reating an 

‘exceptions list’ for cases that require immediate attention,” and 

“[d]rafting orders to support backlog processing decisions.” (Ibid.) 

With respect to rescheduling cases, the Guide suggests that 

courts “[e]stablish a realistic time schedule for setting 

proceedings that will reduce further continuance setting and 

continuance-related postage and other costs.” (Ibid.)

8 Judicial Council Pandemic Continuity of Operations 

Resource Guide <https://www.courthousenews.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/CalifJudicialCouncil-CovidGuide.pdf> 

[as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/Z3JW-U64L>.
10

On June 11, 2020, Judge Brazile issued General Order 

2020-GEN-018-00.9 Judge Brazile ordered that effective 

June 22, 2020, the superior court would expand its operations 

beyond time-sensitive and essentials functions. With respect to 

juvenile dependency courts, Judge Brazile ordered: “Juvenile

Dependency courtrooms will resume full operations. The Court 

will prioritize adjudications and dispositions involving children 

who are detained and continue to conduct remote appearances 

via Webex.” (Id. at pp. 3–4.)

On July 10, 2020, Judge Brazile issued General Order 

2020-GEN-019-00,10 which, among other things, extended certain 

time periods under the Welfare and Institutions Code. Judge 

Brazile did not, however, adopt Judge Greenberg’s prioritization 

schedule or otherwise authorize the continuance of section 364 

matters beyond 60 days.

9 General Order 2020-GEN-018-00

<http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/uploads/14202061213184920

NRGeneralOrderOutliningPhasedReopeningwithGeneralOrder.p

df> [as of Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/J2TY7KXD>.

10 General Order 2020-GEN-019-00

<http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/uploads/14202071016373320

NRGODELAYINGJURYTRIALSUNTILAUGUST.pdf> [as of 

Jul. 30, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/CUD7-UB39>.
11

III. DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Provisions

Section 364 governs review hearings for dependent children 

who have not been removed from their parents, or who, as here, 

have been removed but placed back in the custody of a parent. 

(In re Gabriel L. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 644, 650; accord, In re 

N.O. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 899, 922.) Section 364, subdivision 

(a) provides that when a child is not removed from the physical 

custody of his or her parent, a hearing “shall be continued to a

specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the

original dispositional hearing . . . .” Subdivision (d) states: “If 

the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a 

specified date, not more than six months from the time of the 

hearing.” Further, “[a]fter hearing any evidence presented by the

social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court

shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary.” 

(§ 364, subd. (c).) The initial hearing date, May 14, 2020, was 

scheduled in compliance with section 364.

Section 352 governs continuances in juvenile dependency 

matters. In part, subdivision (a) of section 352 states: “(1) 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 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 
12

minor of prolonged temporary placements. [¶] (2) 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.” 

(Italics added; accord, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a)(1).)

B. Standard of Review

Because the propriety of the juvenile court’s order 

continuing the May 14, 2020, hearing to January 28, 2021, turns 

on our interpretation and application of statutes and the rules 

and orders issued in response to the pandemic, we exercise 

independent review. (In re William M.W. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 

573, 583 [court rules]; Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 

158 Cal.App.4th 60, 81 [statutes and court rules].)

C. Prioritization Schedule Does Not Properly Allow a

Continuance

The juvenile court continued the section 364 status hearing 

for 220 days, citing “directives from Governor Newsom, health 

officials and court leadership.” (Italics added.) As we discussed

above, Emergency rule 6, which was enacted pursuant to 

Governor Newsom’s executive order, only allows a continuance of 

60 days. Thus, at most, Commissioner Castro could continue the 

section 364 hearing from May 14, 2020, to July 13, 2020. 

Further, although the Chief Justice’s statewide order of 

March 23, 2020, authorized superior courts to adopt proposed 

rules or rule amendments intended to address the impact of the 

COVID-19 pandemic, none of Judge Brazile’s orders allowed the 
13

juvenile court’s continuance in this matter. Thus, and as the 

respondent court concedes, the only authority for the continuance 

in this matter was Judge Greenberg’s memoranda, which 

prioritized juvenile court hearings based on the type of statutory 

hearing to be held.

According to respondent, a court is authorized to prioritize 

juvenile court hearings based on its inherent authority to 

“‘“insure the orderly administration of justice.”’” We see at least 

two problems with this argument. First, local courts cannot issue 

rules that are inconsistent with statutory time limits. 

(Ghaffarpour v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1463, 

1469–1471 [a local rule cannot override state law setting the date 

on which the time period for filing a peremptory challenge to a 

judge commences]; Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 

Cal.App.4th 645, 653–655 [Court of Appeal invalidated local rule 

that established an expedited procedure for summary judgment 

that shortened the statutorily prescribed minimum notice 

period]; Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 

1152, 1160 [“trial judges have no authority to issue courtroom 

local rules which conflict with any statute”].) Judge Greenberg’s 

memoranda require a continuance beyond not only section 364’s 

six-month deadline but also beyond the additional 60-day 

continuance Emergency rule 6 permits. They are thus contrary 

to state law.

Second, although the Chief Justice has authorized superior 

courts to adopt immediately local rules to address the impact of 

the COVID-19 pandemic, “[a] court adopting any such rule 

change must provide a copy to Judicial Council staff and post 

notice of the change prominently on the court’s website.” Our 

record indicates that Judge Greenberg’s memoranda were neither 
14

provided to the Judicial Council staff nor posted on the superior 

court’s website.

We agree with the general proposition that health 

quarantines to prevent the spread of infectious disease constitute 

good cause for a continuance. (Stanley v. Superior Court, supra,

50 Cal.App.5th at p. 170 [the COVID-19 pandemic constituted 

good cause to continue a defendant’s criminal trial by 90 days, in 

light of “the grave risks to court personnel, jurors, attorneys, and 

[the] defendant himself that would be created by proceeding in 

accordance with the normal timeline, any other conclusion would 

have been unreasonable in the extreme”]; People v. Tucker (2011) 

196 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1317–1318 [upholding one-week delay in 

commencing trial when the defendant was in custody at a 

correctional facility that was under quarantine because a 

prisoner had contracted the H1N1 flu virus]; In re Application of 

Venable (1927) 86 Cal.App. 585, 587–588 [concluding that “the 

prevalence of [an epidemic of infantine paralysis] . . . 

constitute[d] good cause for continuing the [criminal] trial” by 

eight days when no juries were called during that period due to 

the epidemic].) Although the juvenile court stated that “good 

cause” supported the continuance from May 14, 2020, to 

January 28, 2021, there is no indication the court relied on 

section 352 in continuing the hearing. Section 352 permits the 

granting of a continuance “upon a showing of good cause” 

provided, however, “that a continuance shall not be granted that 

is contrary to the interest of the minor.” The court’s order does 

not reflect, and the respondent court does not argue, that the 

court here granted the continuance based upon its consideration 

of the children’s interests. Rather, and as the respondent court

concedes, the court continued the hearing in accordance with 
15

Judge Greenberg’s prioritization schedule, which precludes an 

individual bench officer from advancing a hearing in a manner 

contrary to the schedule without approval from a supervising 

judge.

As we note above, Judge Brazile did not adopt Judge 

Greenberg’s prioritization schedule when issuing various orders 

even though the Chief Justice authorized him to adopt rules or 

rule amendments to address the impact of the COVID-19 

pandemic to take effect immediately. We do not express an

opinion on whether Judge Brazile, in his capacity as presiding 

judge, may personally issue an order that prioritizes dependency 

hearings in light of then prevailing public health conditions in 

Los Angeles County, the feasibility and efficiency of remote 

hearings, and an assessment of available judicial resources to 

assist the juvenile courts in completing the required hearings.
16

IV. DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue vacating the 

juvenile court’s April 29, 2020, order continuing the section 364 

review hearing pursuant to Judge Greenberg’s memoranda. 

Absent a new and different order continuing the hearing on a 

proper legal basis, the juvenile court is directed to hold the 

hearing within 15 days of remittitur issuance.

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.