Filed 3/5/15 In re Georgiana B. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re GEORGIANA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B255628 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK66726)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
HANA M.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Cour t of Los Angeles County. Sherri Sobel,
Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Da wyn Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Depu ty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________ ___________________2 Hana M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s March 28, 2014 jurisdictional order, contending substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s order adjudging 11-year-old Georgiana B. a dependen t of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subd ivision (b) (failure to protect). 1 She also contends the court erred in failing to dismis s the petition as to Mother af ter the court struck Father from the petition. She further claims the c ourt abused its discre tion in denying her request for a third continuance of the adjudica tion hearing. Gregory B. (Father) is not a party to the appeal. We conclude the court did not err in failing to dismiss the petition as
to Mother after the court st ruck Father from the petition; substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b); and the cour t did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue the adjudicati on hearing a third time. We affirm.
BACKGROUND The section 300, subdivision (b) petition The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Georgiana on June 26, 2013. At the ju risdictional hearing held on March 28, 2014, the juvenile court sustaine d paragraph b-1 of th e section 300 petition which, as amended, alleged that Mother ha d “mental and emotiona l problems including paranoid and delusional behavior, which render ed her unable to provide regular care” for Georgiana. 2 Events leading up to th e jurisdictional and dispositional hearing Mother’s delusional episodes In June 2013, Father reported to the police that Mother and Georgiana were missing after Mother had left voice messages for him that vampires and others were

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 An allegation in paragraph b-1 of the se ction 300 petition stating, “The mother has failed to obtain mental health services for the mother’s psychiatric condition,” was stricken. Paragraph b-2 of th e section 300 petition, which alle ged Father had a history of illicit drug abuse, including heroin and cocaine, and was a current abuser of marijuana with a positive toxicolo gy screen on June 18, 2013, was dismissed.3 trying to kill her and that Georgiana was gone . Henry J., the father of Mother’s adult daughter, Jessica K., found Mother and Georgi ana at Union Station in Los Angeles and brought them to the police department on Ju ne 17, 2013. On Ju ne 17, 2013, DCFS interviewed Mother and other family members in response to a referral by the police. Subsequently, on June 21, 2 013, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s removal order warrant for Georgiana, placi ng her in the care of Father. During the interview, Mother was unable to engage in a focused discussion with DCFS, relating numerous delusion s and failing to remain on topic. She stated that she had been preparing to take a bus to vis it Jessica in Eureka in Northern California when Henry found her at Union Statio n and persuaded her to stay at a hotel. They argued the next day, and he chased her on his bi cycle and found her in a phone store. She also said that she had stayed at a be d-and-breakfast with Georgiana, but knew something was wrong when she saw the same pictures of wolves on the walls that had
been sent to her on the Internet. Amon g other things, she to ld DCFS that 115,000 Albanians were harassing her and had sent he r pictures of her name spelled backwards
and of a woman with her throat slit. She to ld DCFS that Illuminati, Scientologists, and vampires were “after her,” and referred to oddly named persons and Facebook pages run by Albanians. Mother said “the people hara ssing her” saw pictures of Georgiana on
Facebook and told Mother that Georgiana looked like an alien. She “began to derail” and stated she was unsure whether the melting clocks in Salvador Dali pictures were real and that she saw melting clocks in a mirror when a man she had dated became angry with her. She stated that people were using Mickey Mouse and Hello Kitty against her. Mother showed DCFS pictures of Fathe r’s girlfriend, claiming she was evil. She said that people were “throwing these images at her” becaus e she had been exposed to a secret. She wanted to take Georgiana to Pennsylvania and was extremely upset when DCFS told her
she could not do so. She also stated she wanted to flee to Eureka or Pennsylvania, noting that the safety plan requiring Georgi ana stay with Father was voluntary. She did not4 think her statements caused behavioral issu es for Georgiana, claiming any problems Georgiana had were Father’s fault. Mother denied any mental health histor y and current substance abuse, stating she had last used cocaine seven y ears ago during a New York depe ndency investigation. She
fled New York because she knew she would drug test positive. She did not remember the last time she had taken Georgiana to a docto r, although she stated they both had their teeth whitened regularly. Mother tested ne gative in an August 18, 2013 drug test. Georgiana told DCFS that Henry found them at the train station and asked them to stay in Los Angeles so he co uld help them. He got them a hotel room for the night. Henry told Mother he wanted to take her to the police station to get help. Georgiana said Mother was trying to protect her against people trying to hurt them. She said that Mother told her “‘people are trying to hurt us, but sh e doesn’t want to scare me.’” She believed the things Mother said were true and denied that Mother exhibited unusual behavior. She and Mother had stayed with different friends over the last year. Georgiana had attended several elementary schools. The last time she had seen a doctor or dentist was over a year ago, although she had gotte n her teeth whitened with Mother.
Father told DCFS that Mother’s behavior had gotten progressively worse over the last eight months after she broke up w ith an actor whom she now believed was threatening her. Father played messages to DCFS that Mother had left on his voicemail stating that she and Georgiana were homeless and vampires were trying to kill her, “they” believed Georgiana was an alien, and Scientologists believe alie ns live “inside us.” In one voicemail message, Mother laughed in a “maniacal” manner. Father said Mother was homeless after goi ng through a $250,0 00 advance from an investor in her hair product company. Mo ther was obsessed with her computer and had been asked to leave the home of a family friend after showing the friend’s father disturbing pictures of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims on her co mputer. Mother and Georgiana had stayed at Father’s home on June 14, 2013, but Mother left in a rage when she saw Georgiana singing with some neighbors. Fath er told DCFS that Mother claimed a metal5 plate implanted over her heart by the Illumina ti was so heavy she coul d not get up to take Georgiana to school on time. Mother had a hi story of pulling Georgiana out of school so
she would not be alone. Geor giana had missed the last three days of school. Mother often dropped Georgiana at his house unanno unced, without clean clothes, shoes, or
homework. Mother then failed to return for days. Georgiana told Father that she and Mother would meet random strangers and stay at their houses. She also told him that everything Mother said was true because Mother showed Georgiana pictures on the Internet of the Illuminati and other things.
Father stated that Mother had moved fro m state to state, pr eventing Father from filing for custody. She had fled New York after testing positiv e for cocaine during a previous children’s services investigation. In 2010, Mother had been awarded full custody of Georgiana in a Penn sylvania court, even though Father had told the judge of
his concerns about Mother’s mental health and her disappearances for lengthy periods of
time.
Father stated he had abused heroin a nd cocaine 20 years ago and had one relapse 11 years ago. He denied curre nt drug abuse and admitted to taking medical marijuana for high blood pressure. Father tested positive fo r marijuana on August 18, 2013. After that positive test, he began taking prescribed medication instea d of medical marijuana for his high blood pressure. Father reported that after the juvenile court detained Georgiana from the care of Mother and released her to Father on June 26, 2013, with monitored visits, Mother called maternal grandfather and threatened to slit his throat. By Septem ber 2013, Father had enrolled in counseling progra ms, accepted family preserva tion services, and facilitated visitation between Georgiana and Mother. Maternal grandfather told DCFS that Mother had untreated mental health problems and that Mother’s maternal side , including maternal grandmother, had an extensive history of mental illness. Matern al uncle had bipolar disorder and schizoid tendencies. Mother had been experiencing in creasingly bizarre thoughts and actions over6 the past eight months, claiming her life was being threatened by va mpires who lived in tombs under the Staples Center and that peopl e stalking her had placed a metal plate in
her chest. Mother had extreme behavior ch anges, being nice one moment and cruel, nasty, and mean the next. Mother became fu rious after he refused to give her money and instead offered to help her get evaluated. He feared that Georgiana was suffering psychological harm. Henry told DCFS that after the invest or who gave Mother $200,000 for her company died, Mother spent th e money “wildly” over a two-year period and eventually
became homeless. Mother had taken Georgiana to different friends’ ho uses as she wore
out her welcome. Mother had olfactory hallucinations and vi sual and auditory delusions.
She believed she was in the center of a cons piracy, spoke freely to Georgiana about her beliefs and delusions, and saw symbols in everything. Georgiana was protective of Mother and might believe Mother’s statem ents. Upon being alerted by a “frantic” Jessica, Henry found Mother and Georgiana at the train station, where Mother was preparing to take Georgiana on a 16- hour bus ride with no food for her.
Jessica told DCFS that Mother’s mental he alth had deteriorated over the past eight months. After Mother broke up with an actor, she believed he was part of the Illuminati and involved in a conspiracy against her. Among other things, Mother told Jessica that she had half human and half pig blood; she ha d seen eyeballs looking at her from a tree; she and Georgiana were going to be abducted; people wanted to eat her; and she had a metal plate in her chest which made it difficu lt for her to get out of bed and made her walk slowly. Jessica had received a call fro m the owner of a bed and breakfast, who stated Mother had acted bizarrely and had fri ghtened another guest. Georgiana had given
Jessica’s number to the owner because she had been frightened by Mother’s behavior. Jessica believed Georgiana was being ps ychologically and emotionally damaged by Mother, who made delusional statements in fr ont of Georgiana and was unable to care for
her.7 Janet C., the owner of the bed and breakfas t, related many incidents of Mother’s
extreme delusional behavior and stated Mother brought a man “she had met in the street” to the bed and breakfast. Jennifer B., the co -owner, stated Georgiana gave her Jessica’s phone number to get assi stance for the family. Detention hearing, further inves tigation and upfront assessment On June 26, 2013, the juvenile court de tained Georgiana from Mother and placed
her with Father. The court ordered Mother to have twice weekly monitored visits,
referrals for mental health assessment and co unseling, and parenti ng counseling. DCFS was ordered to provide family maintenance se rvices to Father. DC FS determined that child welfare referrals regard ing unspecified allegations ha d been made on behalf of Georgiana and Jessica in Hawaii, New York, and Philadelphia. A 2006 referral alleging physical abuse by Mother against Jessica was closed as unfounded; a 2005 referral alleging Jessica and Georgiana had been emoti onally abused by Mother’s then-boyfriend had been substantiated; and a 2001 referra l alleging neglect and emotional abuse by Mother against Jessica wa s closed as unfounded. On July 11, 2013, Mother was assessed. She was described as demanding, suspicious, angry, and hostile. Mention of Father was a trigger to her anger. She related unclear and confusing stories of persecution by various peop le and entities. Her insight was described as inadequate, due to her failu re to admit her “incongruent” thoughts and unsubstantiated stories. Mother reported cons istent lack of employment and reliance on friends for support. The assessor diagnosed Mother with psyc hotic disorder not otherwise specified and relational problem not otherwise specifi ed. She recommended ruling out delusional disorder and paranoid personality disord er. She also recommended a psychiatric evaluation, individual therapy, and monito red visits with Geor giana without Father present. The assessor concluded Mother’s unstable mental health, housing, and employment were risk factors to Georgiana.8 Continued adjudication hear ings and DCFS reports On September 25, 2013, after granting Mother’s request for a hearing made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 ( Marsden ), the juvenile court granted
Mother’s motion to substitute counsel. Th e court appointed new counsel from the same law firm. The court continued the adjudica tion hearing to January 6, 2014. In the meantime, DCFS reported that Father drug test ed negative, participated in counseling, and had so far completed 10 out of 12 requir ed parenting classes. DCFS also reported Father had established a stable family unit that was supportive of Georgiana. DCFS further reported that Georgi ana was progressing well with 14 individual therapy sessions and had a good relationship w ith Father and his girlfriend. Georgiana was happy, welladjusted, and thriving in school. DCFS obs erved that Mother refused to provide DCFS with an address and her cell phone was not receiving messages. At the January 6, 2014 hearing, the juve nile court granted Mother’s request for a
Marsden hearing. Although it denied her motio n for new counsel, the court relieved her current counsel and appointed new counsel fro m the same law firm, apparently because Mother’s current counsel was leaving the firm . Father and DCFS opposed a continuance of the adjudication. Georgiana’s counsel also opposed a continuance but noted that Georgiana would not suffer detr iment by a continuance because she was well cared for in Father’s home. The court continued the adju dication to March 14, 2 014, but warned that
no further continuances would be granted. On March 6, 2014, DCFS reported that Mother said she had been evaluated at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars) twice and had been told she was not mentally ill, but was stressed, harassed, and heartbroken. Father told DCFS that Georgiana had been accepted into a gifted program and that she was a star student. Although DCFS arranged for twice weekly monitored vis its for Mother, she had attended only two visits in January and three in February. At a visit in Febr uary, Mother became upset because Georgiana told her she was doing a school report on Lucille Ball. Mother called DCFS the next day to say she was not happy that Georgiana wa s doing a report on Luc ille Ball and her best9 friend was doing a report on Alfred Hitchcock, whom Mother regarded as “‘dangerous’”
characters. Mother did not like Lucille Ball’ s red hair and did no t want Georgiana to dress up like her. Mother stated she did not want Georgiana to attend Los Angeles schools. She was angry becaus e Georgiana went to the movi es with her friends rather than with Mother. She angrily stated that everything in the DCFS reports was a lie. On March 14, 2014, Mothe r’s counsel was relieved and yet another attorney was appointed from the same law firm to repr esent her. The juvenile court expressed amazement that the petition ha d been filed on June 26, 20 13, yet still had not been adjudicated. The juvenile court indicated to mother’s new counsel that it did not “know what you need to subpoena” and noted th at prior counsel “pr obably should have subpoenaed whatever there was that needed to be subpoen aed”; the juvenile court
nonetheless continued the matter to March 28, 2014. DCFS subsequently reported that at a vis it on March 3, 2014, Mother denigrated a game that Father gave Georgiana even thou gh Georgiana said she loved it. Mother referred to Father as a “Zero” for failing to pay child support. On a visit on March 5, 2014, Mother again referred to Father as “Z ero” and angrily stated that he was getting recognition for how well Georgiana was doing, even though he did not do anything for her or pay child support. After repeatedly asking Mother to refra in from talking about Father, DCFS had to terminate the visit. The March 27, 2014 mo tion for a continuance On March 27, 2014, Mother’s counsel filed another request for a continuance, arguing that when he substituted in on March 14, 2014, he informed th e juvenile court he
needed a continuance of the adjudication hearing to obtain medical records from Cedars regarding mental evaluations of Mother. Counsel had not yet received the records. According to the declaration of the investig ator retained by the law firm representing Mother, the records would be received by the law firm seve n to 10 business days from March 27, 2014.10 The March 28, 2014 ju risdictional and dispositional hearing At the March 28, 2014 jurisdictional heari ng, the juvenile court denied Mother’s motion for a continuance, stati ng that the case had been file d almost a year ago. The court noted the motion had been filed the day before trial and stated the claim that the records might “alter some of the specifics of the jurisdictional hearing” was not welltaken and observed that given all the delay, Georgiana had been “betwixt and between for almost a year.” The court concluded that the trial could proceed on the submitted
evidence even if there was no specific diagnosis regardi ng Mother’s mental state. After argument of counsel, the juvenile court dismissed the petition as to Father and sustained the amended allegations of the petition as to Mother. The court observed that Georgiana was extremely bright, with ve ry good grades, but was tardy to school 24 days and absent many days when she was livi ng with Mother. The court noted Georgiana had given out Jessica’s phone number becaus e she had been frightened by Mother’s behavior. It also noted extensive reports showed Mother’s paranoid behavior had been affecting Georgiana for quite some time. Ob serving that there was no current evidence Mother had been given medication, the court st ruck the allegation in paragraph b-1 of the section 300 petition that stated, “The mother ha s failed to obtain mental health services for the mother’s psychiatric condition.” Observing that Mother’s behavior was “ab solutely paranoid an d delusional,” and based on the reports, maternal grandmother’s te stimony that the latter behavior had been long-standing, and “a lay person’s verdict just from seeing her around,” the court sustained the amended allegation against Mo ther that she has mental and emotional problems, including paranoid and delusional behavior, rendering her unable to provide regular care and superv ision of Georgiana. The juvenile court ordered sole legal and sole physical custody to Father, visitation for Mother in a monitored setting with Father selecti ng the monitor, and
mental health services for Mother. The court recognized that Mother could go to family court to “make any changes she wants,” includi ng custody, and that Mother must be able11 to show “she curren tly is either taking medication or has not been prescribed
medication.” 3 The court then terminated jurisdicti on with a family law exit order, which it ordered to be filed in any court in whic h a custody proceeding wa s pending or absent such a proceeding, in the cour t of the county in which Fa ther was residing. Mother appealed.
DISCUSSION The juvenile court did not err in failing to dismiss the petition as to Mother after striking Father from the petition We disagree with Mother’s contention that the juvenile court erred in failing to dismiss the petition as to Mother after th e court struck Father from the petition. Mother relies on our opinion in In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675 ( A.G. ) for the proposition that if at the adjudication he aring, the juvenile court determines one parent can properly care for a minor and the petition is dismissed as to that parent, the petition should be dismissed as to the remain ing parent. There, the mother had serious
mental health issues and wa s living with the father and the minors at the time of the hearing. The father had hi red a nanny to watch the minors when the mother was home
and he was not. We held in that factual se tting, where the minor was not in danger and given scarce public resources better put to exercising jurisdiction over neglected or abused children, the issue of cu stody should be resolved in the family court. Indeed, we remanded the case to the family court for a hearing on custody and visitation. ( A.G. , at pp. 686–687.) We do not have that factual setting here. It is true that Geor giana was living with Father at the time of the jurisdictional hearin g, and by all reports, doing well. We thus recognize the seeming similarity to In re A.G. In marked contrast to A.G. , however, Father had no custodial rights; a Pennsylvania court had given sole custody to Mother.

3 It is not entirely clear why the juven ile court included this language in its disposition. Mother, however, does not challenge this aspect of the disposition, so we do not address it.12 Here, there was evidence that in the past, Mo ther forum shopp ed for a state in which to obtain a custody order that was far away from Father, and was contemplating moving Georgiana away from Father to Pennsylvania or Northern California at the time DCFS was investigating claims that Georgiana was in danger.
Unlike in A.G., Georgiana was not living with both parents and there was no nanny or other adult in the house to protec t Georgiana in the ev ent Mother’s mental
health issues surfaced. In other words, in A.G . there was an adult other than Mother caring for the minors at all times. As detaile d herein, there was also evidence that Mother and Georgiana stayed overnight with total strangers, and Mother allowed her to miss many days of school, left her in an unclean state, and did not take her to a dentist or doctor. Similarly, Georgiana came to DCFS ’s attention because several adults called regarding their concern for her, including the maternal grandfather, the adult half sister, and Father, when he could not locate Georgian a. In short, the differences between the
instant case and A.G. are differences in kind and not just degree. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b)
Mother contends insufficient evidence supported the juve nile court’s jurisdictional order as to the allegations under secti on 300, subdivision (b). We disagree. Section 300, subdivision (b) provides a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction if
“there is a substantial risk th at the child will suffer, serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardia n to adequately supervise or protect the child . . . . The ch ild shall continue to be a depe ndent child purs uant to this subdivision only so long as is necessary to protect the child from risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness.” “A jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b) requires: ‘“(1) neglectful conduct by the parent in one of the specified forms; (2) causation; and (3) ‘serious physical harm or illness’ to the child, or a ‘substantial risk’ of such harm or illness.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] The third element ‘effectively requires a showing that13 at the time of the jurisdictional hearing the child is at substan tial risk of serious physical harm in the future . . . .’ [Citation.]” ( In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.Ap p.4th 129, 135.) Jurisdiction may be exercised “based on . . . a current or future risk.” ( In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1435, fn. 5.) The juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding that the minor is a person described in section 300 must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 355; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.684(f).) “‘“When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewin g court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, ev idence which is reasonable, cr edible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. [C itation.] In making this determination, all conflicts [in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the ev idence] are to be resolved in favor of the prev ailing party, and issues of fa ct and credibility are questions for the trier of fact. [Citation.]”’ [Citation. ] While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences mu st rest on the evidence; infere nces that are the result of speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding. [Citation.]” ( In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258–1259.) “[W]e must accept the evidence most
favorable to the order as true and discar d the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by th e trier of fact. [Citation.]” ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 53.) We conclude that substantial evidence supp orted the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivision (b). Mother’s mental and emotional problems resulted in behaviors that placed Georgiana at serious risk of physical harm. Mother had been assessed with a psycho tic disorder, with unstable mental health, housing, and employment described as risk factors to Georgiana

. Family members stated Mother had gone through about $250,000 in two year s, and was currently homeless and her whereabouts were not always known. Georgiana had moved from several schools because Mother went from place to place. Mother relied on friends for financial support, but ended up getting kick ed out of their houses because of inappropriate behavior that14 might have been generated by her mental illness. Additionally, Mother had been prepared to take Georgiana on a 16-hour bus ride without food for Georgiana; whether caused by mental illness or in ability to care for Georgiana, this further supported a finding of neglect. Similarly, due to Mother ’s impaired judgment and lack of ability to provide adequate housing, Mother and Geor giana sometimes stayed overnight with random strangers, which placed Georgiana at risk of harm. Family members gave consistent descrip tions of Mother’s ex treme paranoid and delusional behavior, observing that Mother’s behavior had worsened over the past eight months. Among many other delusions, she believed that there was a conspiracy of vampires, Albanians, the Illuminati, and Scient ologists to kill her and Georgiana. Mother had serious paranoid delusions during their st ay in a bed and breakfast, during which time Georgiana became frightened an d gave Jessica’s phone numbe r to the owner of the bed
and breakfast to seek assistance. Mother also believed the Illuminati had pl aced a metal plate in her chest, which was so heavy she could not get up to take Georgiana to school. Thus, Georgiana was often tardy and missed many days of school while in Mother’s care. We recognize that a minor’s missing school may be insufficient gro unds in itself to assert jurisdiction. In In
re Janet T. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 377, Division Seven of this district deemed a petition facially insufficient where it alleged a mothe r’s mere failure to ensure school attendance and “provided no other facts to suggest how mother’s mental health problems created a
‘substantial risk’ her children would suffer ‘s erious physical injury or illness.’” ( Id. at p. 389.) The facts here show not just absence from school, but Mother’s increasingly bizarre delusions and paranoia, Mother’s fa ilure to acknowledge or treat her mental illness, Mother’s inability to obtain employment or provi de housing, and Mother’s putting Georgiana at risk by staying with strangers. At the time of the events giving rise to the petition, Mother had sole legal and physical custody of Georgiana. Mother had a history of moving from state to state to
avoid children’s services and indicated she want ed to take Georgiana to Pennsylvania or15 Northern California. Without the assertion of jurisdiction, Father would not have been able to prevent Mother from leaving Califor nia with Georgiana. Mother argues that “Pennsylvania had arguably lost jurisdiction due to the child’s continuing residence in California, making California arguably now qu alif[ied] as Georgiana’s ‘home state,’” but at the same time, she recognizes that “the juvenile court never made any findings regarding interstate jurisdiction,” and we conclude she has fail ed to show how the juvenile court erred.
Mother also claims DCFS failed to show Georgiana had been harmed by Mother’s mental illness or was at risk of harm by her mental illness because Georgiana denied that Mother acted strange, Georgian a said Mother did not tell he r scary things, and there was no evidence that Georgiana had adopted Mothe r’s delusional beliefs. Georgiana’s denial of Mother’s behavior as strange is of conc ern, whether Georgiana was protecting Mother or accepting Mother’s behavior as normal. At the page in the reco rd cited by Mother, Georgiana did not state that Mo ther did not tell her scary thin gs, but stated that Mother told her “people are trying to hurt us, but sh e doesn’t want to scare me,” thus reflecting Mother’s paranoid views. Georgiana stated that Mother was telling the truth because she had shown Georgiana the Illuminati on the Intern et, contradicting Mother’s argument that Georgiana had not adopted her beliefs. Finally, Mother’s argument that Georgiana was doing exceptionally well in school and had adju sted well to living w ith Father merely supports the propriety of the placement of Georgiana with Father. Accordingly, we conclude substantial ev idence supported the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings under se ction 300, subdivisions (b). The juvenile court did not abuse its disc retion in denying Mother’s request for a third continuance of the adjudication hearing Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for a third continuance of the adjudi cation hearing. We disagree.16 The record shows that the juvenile court granted several continuances that pushed the adjudication hearing past the deadline manda ted by statute. We conclude it did not abuse its discretion in denyin g yet another continuance. Section 352, subdivision (a) provides that in general, “Upon request of counsel for the parent . . . the court may continue an y hearing under this chapter beyond the time limit within which the hearing is otherwise required to be held, provided that no 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, th e need to provide ch ildren with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporar y placements. [¶] Continuances shall be grante d only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by th e evidence presented at the hearing on the
motion for the continuance.” Section 352, subdivision (b) also expr essly states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a minor has been rem oved from the parents’ or guardians’ custody, no continuance shall be granted that would result in the dispositional hearing, held pursuant to Section 361, being completed longer than 60 days after the hearing at which the minor was ordered removed or detained, unless the court finds that there are exceptional circumstances requiring such a con tinuance.” In no event “shall” the court grant a continuance that would cause a section 361 hearing to be completed more than six
months after the in itial petition hearing. The juvenile court’s order denying a c ontinuance will be re versed “only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.” ( In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1187.) Here, the detention hearing was held on J une 26, 2013; therefore, the section 361 hearing should have been held six months after that, by Dece mber 26, 2013. The juvenile court granted two more continuances after that date. On March 27, 2014, the day before the adjudication hearing, Mother filed a requ est for yet another continuance. Because Georgiana was removed from Mother’s custod y, the court was required not to grant a17 continuance that would result in the dispositi onal hearing being held 60 days after the detention hearing unless there was a show ing of exceptional circumstances. The dispositional hearing was already held long af ter the required 60-day time period. We
conclude Mother failed to show exceptional circumstance s that would provide good
cause for another continuance. Mother claimed in a request made the day before the adjudicati on that she needed a continuance to procure medical records from Cedars. Mother, however, could have
obtained her medical records herself and ha d the opportunity to obtain them earlier through her counsel, who were all affiliated with the same law firm representing her at the jurisdictional hearing, and who knew her mental state was a central issue in the case from its inception in June 2013. DCFS repor ted on March 6, 2014, that Mother claimed
she had been examined at Ce dars and reported to be stressed and harassed, but not mentally ill. Thus, her counsel were on notic e of her claim that sh e had been examined, well before her March 27, 2014 re quest for a continuance. (See In re A.B . (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1366 [juvenile court did not abuse discre tion in denying request for
continuance where counsel ha d ample time to determine time period when minor had poor health].) Further, as the juvenile cour t observed, the medical reco rds were not necessary in light of the evidence that Mother’s paranoid and delusional behavior placed Georgiana at risk, regardless of a particular diagnosis. As we explained above, there was substantial evidence in support of the court’s findings, including consistent statements from family members, including Georgiana, and an assess ment of Mother’s mental health. Further, Mother fails to articulate on appeal whethe r the medical records contained relevant information resulting in a favorable result to Mother, and therefore has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the court’s deni al of her request for a continuance. We disagree with Mother’s argument that the juvenile court improperly admitted lay opinion—as opposed to expert opinion from Cedars—based on the court’s comment that “even a lay person” coul d see Mother’s mental and emotional problems placed18 Georgiana at risk. In making its findings, th e court was exercising its role of weighing the evidence and assessing credibility ; it was not admitting lay testimony. For all these reasons, we conclude the juve nile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s request for a third co ntinuance of the adjudication hearing.
DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s Marc h 28, 2014 orders denying Hana M.’s motion for a continuance, asserting jurisdiction over Geor giana B., and terminating the matter with an exit order to the family court is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J. *
We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

JOHNSON, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution

.