In re A.W. CA4/1, D079417

Background

A.W., age 2 at detention, was removed after an incident where Mother and her boyfriend were arrested; Mother admitted recent methamphetamine use and had prior child-protection contacts.
The juvenile court ordered reunification services and set a six-month review under Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.21(e)(3) because A.W. was under three.
Over six months Mother had inconsistent engagement: brief online treatment, one parenting class, habitual lateness to visits, unstable housing, and a later arrest for methamphetamine/weapon offenses.
Minor’s counsel requested at the six-month hearing that the court set a § 366.26 trial (i.e., decline to extend Mother’s services); the Agency recommended continuation but acknowledged minimal progress.
Mother failed to appear for the contested July hearing; her attorney asked for a continuance which the court denied, then received evidence and found by clear and convincing evidence Mother made no substantive progress and there was no substantial probability of reunification by 12 months, so the court declined to extend services.
Mother appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and procedural error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by declining to extend Mother’s reunification services under § 366.21(e)(3).	Mother failed to participate regularly or make substantive progress; no substantial probability of return by 12 months, so services may be denied.	Court abused discretion — Mother argued she engaged in services and deserved more time.	Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding of minimal participation and no substantial probability of reunification.
Whether a § 388 petition and the § 361.5(a)(2)(A)–(C) findings were required before terminating/declining services at the six-month hearing.	Those provisions govern early motions to terminate services and do not apply to the court’s § 366.21(e)(3) decision after the minimum six-month period has elapsed.	Mother argued lack of a § 388 petition and missing § 361.5 findings denied due process/notice.	Forfeited on appeal for failure to object; on the merits, § 361.5/§ 388 requirements do not apply to a § 366.21(e)(3) determination at six months.
Whether Mother had adequate notice / was denied due process because minor’s counsel did not file a § 388 petition.	Mother had actual notice (present at June hearing and pretrial) and forfeited the issue by not objecting; any error harmless.	Mother argued she lacked proper procedural notice.	Forfeited and harmless; court had informed Mother of the matter and pretrial confirmed the contested date.
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s counsel a continuance when Mother failed to appear.	Mother voluntarily absented herself; continuance not required and may harm the child’s interest.	Counsel requested more time to coordinate cases; denial prejudiced Mother.	No abuse of discretion. The court attempted contact, found voluntary absence, and denial was appropriate given the child’s interests.

Key Cases Cited

Tonya M. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 836 (Cal. 2008) (explains expedited permanency focus for very young children and limits on reunification timelines)
In re Jesse W., 157 Cal.App.4th 49 (2007) (court must evaluate extent a parent availed themselves of services when deciding reunification)
In re Katelynn Y., 209 Cal.App.4th 871 (2012) (discretion to terminate or continue services; parent bears burden to show additional services serve child’s best interests)
Kevin R. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.4th 676 (2010) (standard of review: substantial evidence and viewing record in light most favorable to trial court)
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (2017) (principles of statutory interpretation applied to juvenile statutes)
M.C. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.5th 838 (2016) (discusses interplay of § 361.5 and § 366.21 and limits on early termination of services)
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (harmless error standard applies in dependency proceedings)