Filed 9/30/21 In re Kai F. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re KAI F., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B310934

 (Los Angeles County Super. 

 Ct. No. 20CCJP01233)

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHELLE M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

* * * * * * 

Michelle M. (mother) challenges the juvenile court’s denial 

of her attorney’s request to continue the dispositional hearing. 

Because this was mother’s second nonappearance in a row 

(despite proper notice), the court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the request. We accordingly affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

Michelle M. (mother) and Art F. (father) have one child, Kai 

F. (born June 2017). 

For the first six months of his life, Kai lived with his 

parents in a trailer located on the back portion of the paternal 

grandparents’ property. During this period, mother and father 

used marijuana on a daily basis in Kai’s presence. Father would 

also enter the paternal grandparents’ home, steal and pawn 

items, and use the proceeds to purchase prescription pills and 

alcohol to ingest along with marijuana. Mother and father also 

had heated verbal arguments in Kai’s presence, and those verbal 

disputes sometimes became physical; on one occasion, mother 

inflicted a cut on father’s neck. 

When Kai was approximately six months old, the paternal 

grandparents became so concerned for his well-being that they 

took him into their home. Mother and father terminated their 

romantic relationship around that time, and mother started 

living in abandoned buildings. 

On February 10, 2020, father got into a verbal fight with 

paternal grandfather and left with Kai. Father, mother and Kai 
3

then started living together again as they moved from motel room

to motel room. 

II. Procedural Background

A. Petition

On March 2, 2020, the Los Angeles Department of Children 

and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition asking the 

juvenile court to exert dependency jurisdiction over Kai. In the 

operative first amended petition, the Department alleged that 

jurisdiction was warranted because (1) mother and father each 

have a “history of substance abuse including marijuana and 

alcohol” that renders them “incapable of providing regular care 

and supervision” and thus places Kai “at risk of serious physical 

harm” (thereby rendering jurisdiction appropriate under Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)),1 and (2) 

mother and father have a “history of domestic violence including 

the parents engaging in heated arguments that include yelling, 

screaming and cursing the presence of the child” and thus places 

Kai “at risk of physical and emotional harm, damage and danger” 

(thereby rendering jurisdiction appropriate under section 300, 

subdivision (b)(1)). 

At a hearing on March 3, 2020, the juvenile court ordered 

Kai detained from parents and placed with the paternal 

grandparents. The court also told the parents that “it is very

important that you be [at future proceedings] . . . These are very 

important proceedings that we want you to be a part of.” 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code unless otherwise indicated.
4

B. Statements and conduct prior to the 

jurisdictional hearing

Mother admitted to using marijuana. Father initially 

admitted to using marijuana, but later disavowed any drug use 

and also denied having a criminal record, despite having suffered

a documented 2018 conviction for driving under the influence of 

alcohol and drugs. 

Mother and father denied any domestic violence. Neither 

mother nor father showed up to any of the random drug tests the 

juvenile court ordered at the detention hearing. 

C. Jurisdictional hearing

The juvenile court conducted the jurisdictional hearing on 

September 25, 2020, and both mother and father were present. 

The juvenile court sustained all of the allegations in the first 

amended petition, and set the dispositional hearing for November 

18, 2020. 

D. Dispositional hearings

Both mother and father attended the hearing on November 

18, 2020. Mother requested a continuance to explore the 

propriety of naming the paternal grandparents as Kai’s legal 

guardians by parental consent pursuant to section 360, 

subdivision (a). Over the Department’s objection, the juvenile 

court granted mother’s request, ordered the Department to 

investigate the paternal grandparents’ fitness to serve as legal 

guardians and continued the dispositional hearing to January 4, 

2021. The court expressly ordered both parents to return to court 

on January 4, 2021. 

The Department conducted its investigation, concluding 

that the paternal grandparents were “committed to” Kai and 

were “appropriate for [l]egal [g]uardianship.” 
5

Mother was present for the January 4, 2021 hearing, but 

father was not. The juvenile court concluded that service on both 

parents had been proper, but continued the hearing until 

February 4, 2021, so that father could be re-served. 

Neither mother nor father showed up for the February 4, 

2021 hearing, despite proper service of the notice of hearing and 

mother being present at the prior hearing when the February 4 

date was set. The court emphasized the need to obtain both 

parents’ waiver of reunification services and both parents’ 

consent to the creation of the legal guardianship. The court 

“continue[d] the hearing” to the “next week,” and asked the 

Department to give notice, asked mother’s and father’s attorney 

to contact their clients, and asked the parental grandfather to 

notify the parents of the upcoming hearing during their next 

visitation with Kai. The court indicated that, if the parents did 

not appear at the next hearing, “we might have to proceed 

another way.” 

On February 11, 2021, father appeared but mother did not.

Mother’s attorney proffered no explanation for mother’s absence.

Mother’s attorney nevertheless said that her “last instruction” 

from mother was to (1) ask for a further continuance, or, 

alternatively, (2) for a dispositional order that (a) placed Kai back 

with mother and father or granted them unmonitored visitation, 

and (b) had a minimal case plan for mother. The juvenile court 

implicitly denied the continuance request; instead, the court 

ordered reunification services for mother and father, removed Kai 

from their custody and placed him with the paternal 

grandparents, and laid out a case plan for mother that required 

her to attend a drug and alcohol program, to attend parenting 
6

classes, to participate in mental health counseling, and to 

participate in individual counseling. 

E. Appeal

Mother filed this timely appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in denying her 

February 11 request to continue the dispositional hearing to 

allow her an additional opportunity to show up, waive her right 

to reunification services, and consent to a legal guardianship 

with the paternal grandparents. We review the denial of a 

continuance for an abuse of discretion. (In re D.Y. (2018) 26 

Cal.App.5th 1044, 1056.)

A juvenile court has the discretion to continue a 

dependency proceeding upon a showing (1) of “good cause,” and 

(2) that a continuance is “not contrary to the interest of the 

[child],” which gives “substantial weight” to (a) the child’s “need 

for prompt resolution of [the child’s] custody status,” (b) “the need 

for provide children with stable environments,” and (c) “the 

damage to a [child] of prolonged temporary placements.” (§ 352, 

subds. (a)(1) & (a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a).) Where, 

as is the case here, a parent seeks to continue the dispositional 

hearing of a non-Indian child more than 60 days after the hearing 

at which the child was first ordered detained, the requirement of 

“good cause” is elevated to a requirement of “exceptional 

circumstances.” (§ 352, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

5.690(d).) Because time is of the essence with children, 

continuances in juvenile dependency cases are “discouraged” and 

“difficult to obtain.” (In re Emily D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 438, 

448; Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242; 

see generally, § 352, subd. (a)(1) [juvenile court must “give 
7

substantial weight to [the child’s] need for prompt resolution of 

his or her custody status”].)

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

mother’s continuance request in this case.

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding 

that there was no “good cause”—and certainly no “exceptional 

circumstances”—to continue the dispositional hearing. By the 

time of the February 11 hearing, the juvenile court had already 

continued the dispositional hearing twice (on January 4 and on 

February 4) because one or both parents did not show up despite 

proper notice. Having both parents present was critical because 

the court was considering ordering a legal guardianship pursuant 

to section 360, subdivision (a). That provision empowers a court 

to order a legal guardianship at the dispositional hearing (and 

hence prior to a period of reunification), but conditions the 

exercise of that power upon obtaining the custodial parent(s)’s 

personal waiver of their rights to reunification services and 

personal consent to the legal guardianship. (§ 360, subd. (a); In 

re Summer H. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321 [“Section 360 

. . . is a parent-driven statute” contingent upon “the parent’s 

consent”]; cf. In re L.A. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 413, 418-419, 427 

[requiring waiver and consent of “the custodial parent”].) 

Because both mother and father had custody of Kai at the time 

this case was initiated, the juvenile court’s authority to grant a 

legal guardianship over Kai hinged on having both parents 

present to obtain their waivers and consent. Mother’s absence 

from the February 11 hearing was insufficient, on its own, to 

justify a continuance. (E.g., Nahas v. Nahhas (1955) 135 

Cal.App.2d 440, 442 [“The mere absence of a party standing alone 

is insufficient to compel the court to grant a continuance”].) 
8

What is more, the juvenile court had ample reason to believe that 

granting even a short continuance would have been fruitless: By 

the time mother was a “no show” at the February 11 hearing, the 

juvenile court had already explained to her the importance of 

attending every hearing; mother had already not shown up at the 

February 4 hearing despite being explicitly told by the juvenile 

court to attend; and all of the court’s efforts to secure mother’s 

attendance at the February 11 hearing—by sending proper notice 

as well as asking mother’s attorney and paternal grandfather to 

tell mother about the hearing—had already proven to be 

insufficient to secure mother’s attendance. Mother’s sole 

response on appeal is to suggest that her absence was

“understandable” because she thought her prior written waiver 

and consent obviated any need to attend, but this suggestion flies 

in the face of the juvenile court’s repeated personal orders to 

mother to show up to court hearings. It also distinguishes this 

case from In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, which held 

that a juvenile court erred in denying a first-time request for a 

continuance to allow an investigation of a noncustodial parent’s 

home for placement. (Id. at pp. 1571-1572.)

The juvenile court also did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that a further continuance was contrary to Kai’s 

interests. To be sure, an order granting legal guardianship to 

paternal grandparents would have more promptly resolved Kai’s 

custody status, provided him with a stable environment, and 

avoided any danger of temporary placement—which are the 

factors to be given “significant weight.” But, as described above, 

the juvenile court had no reason to believe that granting a third 

continuance would have resulted in mother showing up to the 

yet-again-postponed hearing. All of the court’s prior efforts had 
9

failed. Thus, the court’s choice was between (1) ordering 

reunification services for mother and father, and thereby moving 

the case forward toward the permanency planning stage where a 

legal guardianship could be ordered without the parents’ consent 

(§ 366.26, subd. (b)(3)), or (2) postponing the dispositional hearing 

again, and possibly again and again, thereby delaying any 

forward movement of the case. As between these two options, the 

former option was the one that would more promptly resolve 

Kai’s custody stages, provide him with a stable environment and 

avoid any danger of temporary placement; this is especially so 

where, as here, Kai is to remain with the paternal grandparents 

while the parents are receiving reunification services.

* * *

In light of our rationale, we have no occasion to reach the 

Department’s argument that mother had forfeited her right to 

object to the denial of her continuance request or mother’s 

argument that the erroneous denial was prejudicial because the 

entry of a dispositional order forecloses the statutory availability 

of section 360, subdivision (a).
10

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________, J.

HOFFSTADT

We concur:

_________________________, P. J.

LUI

_________________________, J.

CHAVEZ