In re C.M. CA1/1

DISCUSSION

Denial of Continuance Additional Background Neither parent was present at the section 366.26 hearing. Mother’s counsel asked “for a brief continuance on her behalf,” stating she had not heard from mother. Counsel had “been unable to recently reach” mother, but had provided her with a copy of the section 366.26 report by e-mail. Mother responded by e-mail, stating she had a “new phone number [and] . . . wished to speak . . . about the matter.” Counsel e-mailed, texted, and called mother at both the newly provided number and her old number but “had no response from her.” Counsel went on to state, she had “concern[s] that [mother] may be experiencing some significant financial difficulties. I don’t have proof that she’s not receiving my messages, but I am concerned, given her financial situation, that she may not have. And so I’m asking for a brief continuance to attempt to further reach her so that she can further appear and present her position to the Court.” The court denied the request, finding mother’s lack of responsiveness to counsel did “not constitute good cause.”3 After hearing argument from counsel on the application of the beneficial relationship exception,…