In re Raven A.















Filed 8/6/10 In re Raven A. CA2/5











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE




>

In re RAVEN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B222146 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK57984)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KELVIN A., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL
from the judgments of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County, Terry Truong, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Andrea
R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Andrea
Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and
Byron G. Shibata, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.



_______________________________________

Kelvin A. (father)
appeals from an order of February 4,
2010, terminating parental rights to Raven A. under Welfare and
Institutions Code, section 366.26.^[1] Father contends the dependency court abused
its discretion in holding the section 366.26 hearing in his absence. We conclude conducting the section 366.26
hearing in his absence was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm.



FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL HISTORY



The facts and procedural history
leading up to the section 366.26 hearing are set forth in an opinion filed
today in father's appeal of orders made on December 22, 2009.
(See Los Angeles Department of
Children and Family Services v. Kelvin A. (In re Raven A.), B221613, opn. filed August 6, 2010.)^[2] We now recite the facts and procedure relevant
to father's contention that it was an abuse of discretion to hold the section
366.26 hearing in his absence.

The section 366.26 hearing was
originally scheduled for April 24,
2008. In May 2008, father
was incarcerated, serving a four-year state prison sentence. The section 366.26 hearing was continued
to September 11, 2009,
pending approval of Raven's foster home in Mississippi.

At the section 366.26 hearing on September 11, 2009, father's attorney
set the matter for a contested hearing, and the dependency court continued the matter to
November 10, 2009, for
father to be transported to the hearing.
Also set for a hearing on November
10, 2009, was father's petition under section 388 for a change of
order.

Father was not transported to the November 10, 2009, hearing, because
his prison facility was on lock-down.
The dependency court continued the section 388 and section 366.26
hearings to December 22, 2009,
for father to be transported to court.
On an Order for Prisoner's Appearance at the hearing scheduled for
termination of parental rights, father stated that he waived his right to
attend the parental rights termination hearing and asked that the attorney
representing him appear for him.

Father was present in person at the
hearing on December 22, 2009. The proceedings began with the hearing on
father's section 388 petition. The
dependency court denied the petition.
The court then began the section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental
rights. The court found none of the
statutory exceptions to termination applied.
The court continued the termination hearing to February 4, 2010, because the report for the
hearing was not proper. The court stated
it was not ordering father out for that date.
Father did not object or request to be ordered out for the continued
termination hearing.

The section 366.26 hearing was
concluded on February 4, 2010. Father was not present but was represented by
his attorney. His attorney did not
object to proceeding in father's absence and did not request a continuance so
father could be ordered to court. The
dependency court terminated parental
rights. Father timely appealed the
termination order.



DISCUSSION



>Termination
of Parental Rights



Father contends the dependency court abused its discretion
in denying his request for a transportation order to attend the
section 366.26 hearing. We reject
the contention. Father misstates the
record: he did not request to attend the
hearing. He expressly waived his right
to attend the section 366.26 hearing, and he asked that his counsel represent
him at the hearing. Moreover, he was
present in court when the section 366.26 hearing began. When the hearing was ordered continued, he
did not request a transportation order to attend on the continued date. He did not object when the court stated it
would not order him out for the section 366.26 hearing. On the continued date, he was represented by
counsel, who did not request a continuance so that father could be
present. As father waived his appearance
at the hearing, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to hold the
section 366.26 hearing in his absence.



DISPOSITION



The orders are
affirmed.





KRIEGLER, J.





We concur:





TURNER,
P. J.







MOSK,
J.





Publication courtesy of California
pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information
provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---

id=ftn1>

^[1] Hereinafter,
all statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.