Opinion ID: 2068331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied mother's motions for continuance.

Text: Mother alleges the trial court erred in denying her several motions for continuance of the 1991 adjudicatory hearing. [T]he granting or refusal of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the circuit court, and its rulings will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. In re D.H., 408 N.W.2d 743, 746 (S.D.1987); In re C.J.H., 371 N.W.2d 345, 349 (S.D.1985). The term `abuse of discretion' refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 7 (S.D.1984). The burden rests on Mother to insure her availability at the time of the hearing, C.J.H., 371 N.W.2d at 349, as a dependency and neglect hearing can proceed without the presence of the parent if the interests of the parent are accommodated. Id.; B.A.R., 344 N.W.2d at 92. The original hearing date, May 13, 1991, had been rescheduled several times before it finally began on October 23. Mother gave her attorney various excuses why she could not attend. She did not know when she would be able to return. She told her attorney only that it would be at some indefinite point in the future, at least six weeks away. Nevertheless, at Mother's request, her attorney filed a motion, prior to the hearing, for a continuance which was denied as being in Child's best interests. Mother's attorney repeated this motion at the hearing and it was again denied. The hearing could not be concluded on October 23. It was continued to, and concluded on, November 12. Still Mother was absent. We have previously stated that a mother's departure from the jurisdiction and her failure to maintain contact with relatives, attorney, or the court justified the court in not continuing the matter until the mother should return to South Dakota at some unforeseeable future date. B.A.R., 344 N.W.2d at 92. See also C.J.H., 371 N.W.2d at 349. Mother's interests were represented by her attorney. The adjudicatory hearing had already been delayed numerous times. Child had been in the custody of DSS for almost three years at this time. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found it was in Child's best interest to deny Mother's motions for continuance.