52 Cal.App.5th 1013
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Children were declared dependents; on Oct. 9, 2019 the juvenile court released them to mother with monitored father visitation; a section 364 review was set for May 14, 2020.
- The Department recommended terminating jurisdiction and issuing a Family Law order; as of April 28, 2020 the children were stable with mother.
- Judicial Council Emergency Rule 6 (April 6, 2020) allowed remote juvenile hearings and, if a hearing could not occur, authorized continuances "up to 60 days."
- Los Angeles juvenile court leadership (Judge Greenberg) issued memoranda prioritizing hearings and directed nonessential matters (including many §364 reviews) be continued much longer; Commissioner Castro continued this case 220 days to Jan. 28, 2021.
- Petitioners (parents and Department) sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ vacating the April 29, 2020 continuance and ordered the juvenile court to hold the §364 hearing within 15 days of remittitur unless a lawful new continuance is entered.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could continue the §364 review from May 14, 2020 to Jan. 28, 2021 (220 days) | Continuance exceeded statutory six‑month limit and Emergency Rule 6’s 60‑day allowance; therefore unauthorized | Pandemic conditions and court scheduling exigencies justified the longer continuance | Continuance invalid; only up to 60 days permitted under Emergency Rule 6 absent a proper legal basis; writ granted |
| Whether Judge Greenberg’s memoranda effectively authorized a local rule or exercise of inherent authority to impose the prioritization schedule | Memoranda were not properly adopted or posted to Judicial Council and therefore cannot override state time limits | Court asserted inherent authority to prioritize and manage calendars to ensure orderly administration | Memoranda did not satisfy rule‑adoption/notice requirements and cannot supplant statutory limits; local prioritization cannot override statutes |
| Whether the continuance complied with §352’s good‑cause requirement and consideration of the minor’s interests | No individualized showing of good cause or consideration of child’s interests appeared in the order; continuance contrary to minors’ need for prompt resolution | Scheduling was based on systemwide public‑health and resource constraints rather than individual motions | Court noted §352 requires individualized good‑cause analysis and weight to minors’ interests; record lacked such findings, so continuance was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.App.5th 164 (2020) (pandemic may constitute good cause for continuance but limits still govern)
- In re Gabriel L., 172 Cal.App.4th 644 (2009) (§364 governs review hearings for children placed with parents)
- In re N.O., 31 Cal.App.5th 899 (2019) (discussing §364 application and review timing)
- Ghaffarpour v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 1463 (2012) (local court rules cannot conflict with state statutory time limits)
- Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp., 137 Cal.App.4th 645 (2006) (invalidating local rules that conflict with statutes)
- Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp., 49 Cal.App.4th 1152 (1996) (trial judges lack authority to issue local rules that conflict with statute)
- In re William M.W., 43 Cal.App.5th 573 (2019) (standards for reviewing court rules and statutes)
- People v. Tucker, 196 Cal.App.4th 1313 (2011) (public‑health quarantines can justify short continuances)
- In re Application of Venable, 86 Cal.App. 585 (1927) (epidemics historically recognized as good cause for short continuances)