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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
5