In re C.M. CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/24/26 In re C.M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.M., a Person Coming B350627 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF Super. Ct. No. CHILDREN AND FAMILY 25CCJP02674A) SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.T., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Sally Espinoza, Judge. Affirmed. David Dickey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________________ C.T. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying him a continuance. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts Mother and father have a son together, C.M. (born June 2016), who is autistic. On August 8, 2025, father called C.M. a demeaning name because he had soiled himself, prompting an argument between mother and father. Mother told father to leave and then stood by the door waiting for him. Father pushed mother and walked toward C.M., but mother intervened. Father placed his hand on her throat and pinned her against the wall by her neck, which restricted her breathing, made her dizzy, and caused her ears to ring. She scratched father, who grabbed his belongings and left. Father was arrested. He had been violent with mother on prior occasions too. C.M. does not like father and wants no contact with him. Mother got a criminal protective order against father on August 12, 2025. The same day, father pleaded not guilty to a charge of spousal abuse under Penal Code 273.5, subdivision (a).

2 II. Dependency Proceedings The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition asking the juvenile court to assert jurisdiction over C.M. under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code1 based on the parents’ history of engaging in violence in C.M.’s presence. At the initial hearing on September 23, 2025, the court released C.M. to mother and ordered the child detained from father, with monitored visits. On November 14, 2025, the juvenile court convened the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. Father requested and the court denied a continuance. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court sustained the petition, ordered C.M. placed with mother, gave her sole physical and joint legal custody, and terminated jurisdiction pending receipt of the juvenile custody order. Father was given monitored visits three times a week, and was ordered to complete a 26-week domestic violence program. DISCUSSION Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance. A juvenile court has the discretion to continue any hearing beyond the time limit within which it otherwise must be held 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 the child’s “needs for stability and prompt resolution of [their] custody status.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(1)–(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

3 5.550(a).) “[W]ritten notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3).) Continuances are “disfavored” and “should be difficult to obtain.” (In re F.A. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 107, 117; In re Emily D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 438, 448; Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s continuance request in this case. Father based his request on “outstanding discovery” in the criminal court that he urged was “key to [his] defense against the current petition,” particularly with regard to “mother’s actions towards . . . father and father’s protective capacity while in Arizona in 2019.” Father’s counsel did not explain what evidence he was waiting for in the criminal matter; nor did he explain exactly what it would show. The juvenile court denied the continuance, reasoning that it was “a separate court, separate issues, different standard of proof,” and that the juvenile case “is based on information for which we do have evidence . . . to proceed today.” Our review of the record confirms that the Department conducted its own investigation into the allegations, interviewing both mother and father. On this record, the juvenile court’s denial of father’s last- minute oral request for a continuance was well within its discretion.

4 DISPOSITION The orders are affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J. We concur:

RICHARDSON, J.

GOORVITCH, J.