Filed 9/18/26 In re Melanie F. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re Melanie F., a Person Coming B351093
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________ (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP07769E)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.N.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.
Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Mother D.N. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional
findings and orders of December 8, 2025. Her sole contention on
appeal is that the juvenile court erred and “denied her due
process by denying her short continuance request to obtain her
relevant documentary evidence.”
We affirm. We find the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Mother’s request for a continuance.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has three children. Melanie F. was born in 2018.
Her father is David F. Melanie’s half-siblings, A.L. and E.N., are
not subjects of this appeal.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
A. Prior Juvenile Dependency Case History
This family first came to the attention of the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in
2017. We recite the more recent cases.
On February 11, 2020, the juvenile court sustained a
Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition as to Melanie,
based on Mother’s history of substance abuse, current marijuana
abuse, and domestic violence between Mother and Father when
Mother was six-months pregnant with Melanie. In that matter,
the juvenile court awarded joint legal custody to Mother and
Father, with “sole physical and primary residence” to Mother and
monitored visitation to Father. Father was ordered to complete a
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
52-week domestic violence class and a drug and alcohol program
with testing.
On February 7, 2023, the juvenile court sustained another
section 300 petition based on Mother’s history of substance abuse,
current abuse of marijuana, alcohol, and aerosol dust cleaner
spray while Melanie was under Mother’s care and supervision;
Mother’s November 30, 2022 arrest for child abuse with possible
great bodily injury or death; and Mother leaving Melanie in
Father’s unmonitored care and supervision in violation of court
orders, knowing Father had an unresolved history of violent and
aggressive behavior and substance abuse, including cocaine,
marijuana, ecstasy, and Xanax. In that case, the juvenile court
awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of Melanie.
On October 14, 2024, Melanie’s half-sibling E.N. was
declared a dependent of the juvenile court. The sustained
petition alleged Mother has a history of substance abuse and is a
current abuser of amphetamine and methamphetamine and she
tested positive for amphetamine while pregnant with E.N.
Reunification services were ordered, which the juvenile court
terminated on April 28, 2025.
B. Events Leading to the Filing of the Current Petition
On August 16, 2025, DCFS received a five-day referral
reporting Father’s arrest on August 9, 2025 at 9:30 p.m. for
driving under the influence of alcohol and child endangerment, as
Melanie was in the car’s backseat. The referral reported Father
was pulled over for speeding, was observed to have red, watery
eyes, and exhibited slow and slurred speech with an odor of
alcohol coming from the vehicle. Father’s girlfriend Annika said
she was Melanie’s mother. Melanie identified Annika as her
3
mother. Father stated he did not know Mother’s whereabouts or
contact information.
On August 19, 2025, a children’s social worker (CSW)
obtained a copy of a criminal protective order (CPO) for Los
Angeles Superior Court case No. 25TRCM00358 filed on
February 13, 2025, “which is active and has no expiration date”
listing Father as the restrained party and paternal grandmother
(PGM) as the protected party. Father had been intoxicated and
hit PGM in the nose with a closed fist and struck her face/jaw two
times with his hand, resulting in a bloody nose, open cuts on her
chin, upper lip, nose, and neck.
On August 22, 2025, the CSW reported Mother’s
“whereabouts unknown” and added that Mother “is transient
around the Torrance DCFS office.” Mother’s family members
reported seeing “[M]other on the street but there is no specific
location.” Mother had no phone number or address at this time.
On August 27, 2025, the CSW interviewed maternal great
grandmother (MGGM), who stated she previously was the
caretaker for Melanie for a year after Melanie’s removal from
both parents’ care. Mother had not lived with MGGM for the last
five years. MGGM did not know Mother’s whereabouts.
On August 29, 2025, the juvenile court authorized the
removal of Melanie from Father’s care. Melanie was placed with
maternal grandmother (MGM), who also cared for Melanie’s half-
sibling E.N.
Mother was eventually located in custody at Century
Regional Detention Facility for a second degree robbery case.
C. Petition and Detention
On September 3, 2025, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of Melanie F. The petition alleged:
4
Count b-1: On August 9, 2024, Father placed Melanie “in a
detrimental and endangering situation in that [he] drove a
vehicle with the child as a passenger while [he] was under the
influence of alcohol.” Father was arrested for driving under the
influence and for child endangerment. Father endangered the
child’s physical health and safety and placed the child at risk of
physical harm and danger.
Count b-2: Father has “a history of alcohol abuse and is a
current abuser of alcohol,” rendering him incapable of providing
regular care and supervision of the child, who is of such a young
age as to require constant care and supervision. Father was
under the influence of alcohol while the child was in Father’s care
and supervision on February 5, 2025 and August 9, 2025. His
alcohol abuse endangers the child’s physical health and safety.
Count b-3: On a prior occasion, Father “violently assaulted
the child’s paternal grandmother . . . by repeatedly striking the
paternal grandmother’s face with [his] fists.” PGM sustained a
bloody nose and a bloody laceration to her chin and upper lip. On
February 13, 2025, a CPO was issued protecting PGM against
Father. The CPO remains in effect until February 13, 2028, but
Father and PGM “are not abiding by the CPO as [F]ather
continues to reside in [PGM’s] home.” Melanie F. is a prior
dependent of the juvenile court due to Father’s domestic violence
against Mother when she was six months pregnant. Such violent
conduct by Father endangers the child’s physical health and
safety and creates a detrimental home environment.
At the initial hearing on September 4, 2025, the juvenile
court detained Melanie from her parents, placed her with
MGGM, and ordered reunification services and monitored visits
for both parents.
5
At the September 10, 2025 arraignment, Mother’s counsel
informed the juvenile court that Mother “refused to come to court
this morning, so she was not transported” from local custody.
The court continued the arraignment to October 21, 2025, and
also set jurisdiction and trial for that date too. The juvenile court
stated, “If it can’t be resolved, we’re going over to November 7,
2025” for adjudication and disposition. The juvenile court made
clear that “[t]he minute order should reflect that Mother has
refused to come to court today.”
D. DCFS’s Continued Investigations
On September 23, 2025, DCFS interviewed Mother
telephonically. Mother, then 25 years old, stated: “ ‘I don’t have
much to say. [Father] used to drink when we were together. I’d
say excessively. I thought it was [a] problem but he didn’t. He
thought nothing was wrong.’ ” Mother reported she is “to be
picked up by Prototypes, a substance abuse program where she
will complete her sentence.” Mother “can’t remember the last
time she saw Melanie.”
In an interview with DCFS on October 2, 2025, Melanie
again referred to Annika as her mother.
On October 9, 2025, Father filed a request for the juvenile
court to change placement of Melanie with PGM instead of
MGGM. Father indicated he obtained a modification of the CPO
to allow peaceful contact with PGM.
E. Jurisdiction and Adjudication
On October 21, 2025, at the continued arraignment and
jurisdiction hearing, Mother made her first court appearance.
The juvenile court denied Father’s request for Melanie’s
placement with PGM and ordered continued placement with
6
MGGM; however, it ordered DCFS to assess Melanie’s placement
at PGM’s home once it was RFA-approved. The court advised
both parents that “both jurisdictional and dispositional issues
will be heard by the Court and may be resolved against them if
they fail to appear at any future hearing.”
At adjudication held on November 7, 2025, Mother was not
present and her attorney apprised the juvenile court: “We were
informed that Mother is not on the custody list, but I actually just
called and found out that she was actually released to Prototypes
in Pomona. So that’s probably where she’s located. I can proceed
with adjudication, but I will ask for a continuance for
dispo[sition].”
The juvenile court sustained count b-1 as pled, found true
count b-2 as amended (identifying Father as a current recent
abuser of alcohol) and count b-3 as amended (removing the
information as to the CPO). The court ordered Melanie placed
with PGM and granted Mother’s request for a continuance of the
disposition hearing. The court noted “the recommendation is for
[Mother] not to be offered family reunification services due to her
past Dependency Court history. The court will address and hear
argument on this issue on the 12-8-25 contested Disposition.”
The court specified it wished to hear “Mother’s progress in her . . .
issues and update on how Father’s doing in his programs.”
F. Disposition
On November 17, 2025, the CSW called Prototypes and was
informed “there was no [Release of Information] signed . . . and
therefore no information can be provided” as to Mother. On
November 20, 2025, Mother called the CSW and “confirmed she is
receiving services from Prototypes.” The CSW requested that
Mother provide an enrollment letter and reminded her that
7
disposition is scheduled for December 8, 2025. Having received
no updates, the CSW called Mother on December 3, 2025 and left
a voicemail.
On December 5, 2025, the CSW discussed with PGM and
Melanie the possibility of visitation with Mother, but Melanie
privately told the CSW, “ ‘I don’t want to see that lady because
she left my life when I was 3 or 4 years old.’ ” When the CSW
asked Melanie who her mother is, she reported Annika is her
“mommy.”
The disposition hearing took place on December 8, 2025. At
the outset, Mother’s counsel indicated Mother was “present via
my attorney speaker phone” and “seeking to be heard when
appropriate for a brief continuance request.” The court indicated
it is “ready to proceed.” Mother’s counsel stated: “Mother’s
counselor at Prototypes has been out, so she hasn’t been able to
get verification of her programs, so she doesn’t have that letter
today this morning, so I didn’t know if I could ask for a
continuance so we can get that documentation.” The court
stated, “We’re ready to proceed . . . so I’m not going to grant any
continuance.”
The parties presented their argument. The juvenile court
declared Melanie a dependent of the court under section 300 and
ordered Melanie removed from the care of her parents. The court
ordered no reunification services for Mother “as it’s not in the
child’s best interest.”
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
8
DISCUSSION
Mother argues she “was entitled to a true and fair
contested disposition hearing, which she requested multiple
times. She asked for a short continuance to obtain appropriate
documentary evidence, which would allow her to have a fair and
just disposition hearing to prevent the bypass of reunification. . . .
The court denied her a contested hearing and due process by
denying her the ability to properly present her case at the
disposition hearing. . . . This was equivalent to denying Mother
the right to a full and fair contested hearing and thus an error of
law.”
The juvenile court did not err.
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of
discretion, bearing in mind that continuances are discouraged.
(In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 604–605; In re
Angela R. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 257, 265–266.) Discretion is
abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently
absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (In re
Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 180; In re A.B. (2014)
225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1366.)
Section 352, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “Upon request of
counsel for the parent, . . . the court may continue any hearing
under this chapter beyond the time limit within which the
hearing is otherwise required to be held, provided that a
continuance shall not be granted that is contrary to the interests
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, the need to provide children with stable
9
environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary
placements.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) “Continuances
shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for
that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence
presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance.” (Id.,
subd. (a)(2), italics added.) “In order to obtain a motion for a
continuance of the hearing, written 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.” (Id., subd. (a)(3),
italics added.)
B. Analysis
Mother’s argument is that the juvenile court’s refusal to
grant her request to continue the disposition for a contested
hearing resulted in the denial of her due process right to a
contested disposition hearing. DCFS rejects this characterization
and contends Mother’s argument is with the juvenile court’s
denial of her request for a continuance. We agree with DCFS
that Mother asked for a continuance below and currently
challenges the juvenile court’s denial of that request.
As a matter of practice, “the dispositional hearing often
follows immediately after the jurisdictional hearing, and in some
counties the social worker prepares a combined jurisdictional and
dispositional court report or social study.” (Abbott et al., Cal.
Juvenile Dependency Practice (Cal.Ed.Bar 2017 Update) § 5.1,
p. 315.) It is well recognized that “[t]he dispositional hearing
may immediately follow the jurisdictional hearing.” (Id., at § 5.6,
p. 320.) Here, the jurisdictional hearing took place on October 21,
2025, and the disposition took place more than six weeks later, on
10
December 8, 2025. The juvenile court’s decision to forego a
further continuance and to proceed with disposition is in line
with the policy against continuances. “Continuances are
discouraged in dependency cases” (In re Giovanni F., supra,
184 Cal.App.4th at p. 604) because “[c]hildhood does not wait for
the parent to become adequate” (In re Marilyn H. (1993)
5 Cal.4th 295, 310).
Significantly, the record demonstrates this was not
Mother’s first request for a continuance. At the November 7,
2025 adjudication hearing, Mother’s counsel told the juvenile
court: “I can proceed with adjudication, but I will ask for a
continuance for dispo[sition].” The juvenile court continued the
disposition hearing to December 8, 2025, at which time it wished
to hear updates on “Mother’s progress in her . . . issues and
update on how Father’s doing in his programs.”
Despite this continuance and advisement as to what
information the juvenile court wanted to consider, Mother failed
to provide proof of her enrollment and progress in services at the
December 8, 2025 disposition hearing. Mother indicated that her
Prototypes counselor “has been out” as the reason why Mother
failed to provide proof of her participation in services. However,
Mother had not signed a release of information with Prototypes
to enable DCFS to obtain the information directly for the court.
On November 17, 2025, the CSW called Prototypes and was
informed “there was no ROI signed . . . and therefore no
information can be provided.” Three days later, the CSW
reminded Mother during a phone call that she must provide proof
that she was receiving services from Prototypes and that the
disposition hearing was set for December 8, 2025. The CSW once
11
more called Mother on December 3, 2025 and left a voicemail
following up.
We note Mother’s oral request for a continuance at the
December 8, 2025 disposition hearing does not meet the time
confines in section 352, subdivision (a)(3), which states that
“written notice [for a continuance] shall be filed at least two court
days prior to the date set for hearing.” Mother did not provide an
“affidavit[] or declaration[] detailing specific facts showing that a
continuance is necessary.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3).) For instance,
there was no declaration or evidence provided that Mother’s
Prototypes counselor was in fact “out” for the entire 30 days’
duration of time between the November 7, 2025 adjudication
hearing and the disposition hearing held on December 8, 2025.
Mother provides no legal basis to support her contention
that the juvenile court erred when it denied Mother a second
continuance. Mother’s attempt to recharacterize the juvenile
court’s denial of another continuance request as precluding her
from presenting evidence on dispositional issues is not well
taken. The juvenile court did not preclude Mother from
presenting evidence—indeed she was put on notice on November
7, 2025 that the court wished to hear updates on Mother’s
progress in services at the dispositional hearing continued to
December 8, 2025. That Mother failed to timely provide that
relevant evidence and was not afforded a second continuance
does not amount to a denial of her due process right to a
contested disposition hearing.
This is not a case where a parent was deprived of due
process. The factual allegations were known to Mother for some
months and she was aware that the contested disposition was set
for December 8, 2025 at the November 7, 2025 hearing. The
12
juvenile court was well within its discretion to deny Mother’s
belated request for another continuance.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders are
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
13