DE
D. E. v. Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
Fybel, J.
INTRODUCTION
D. E.was incarcerated at the time the juvenile court conducted a joint jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for his children, M.K.E. and M.N.E. After the hearing had been continued several times, D. E. expressed a desire to be present, and the juvenile court issued a transportation order. But the county in which D. E. was in custody refused to permit him to be transported. The juvenile court proceeded with the hearing in D. E.’s absence. The juvenile court declared M.K.E. and M.N.E. to be dependent children, denied reunification services, and set a hearing to terminate parental rights. D. E. has petitioned for a writ of mandate, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 39.IB.
Even if the juvenile court violated D. E.’s rights under Penal Code section 2625 by conducting the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing without D. E.’s presence, Welfare and Institutions Code section 352, subdivision (b) required the court to proceed. By statute, the juvenile court could not continue the dispositional hearing to a date more than six months after M.K.E. and M.N.E. were detained. Continuing the dispositional hearing as requested by D. E.’s counsel to ensure D.…