K.S. v. Superior Court CA1/2

Filed 3/30/26 K.S. v. Superior Court CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

K.S., A175131

Petitioner, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. v. No. J2500457) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent;

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU et al., Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM OPINION K.S., the mother of six-month-old B.S., petitions for extraordinary relief to overturn a December 17, 2025 order bypassing her for reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, arguing she was not given constitutionally adequate notice of these proceedings in violation of her due process rights.

1

B.S. came to the attention of the Contra Costa Children & Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) when mother was admitted to a local hospital 38 weeks into her sixth pregnancy, presenting with complex mental health issues, reportedly homeless and having tested positive for methamphetamine. Shortly after B.S. was born, mother was transferred to a psychiatric hospital and then upon her discharge went missing for the duration of proceedings. We perceive no due process violation in the juvenile court’s decision to proceed in her absence. The Bureau did not, as mother contends, violate her due process rights by failing to notice her for the September 12, 2025 detention hearing, thereby depriving her of her rights to be present and present evidence. The emergency social workers who tried to visit mother on September 9 while she was initially hospitalized were told the psychiatric unit had temporarily declared her incompetent. The social workers tried to rouse mother to talk with her, but she was unresponsive. They left their contact information and a court information packet for her with the in-house social worker who had accompanied them to her bedside. At the detention hearing, mother’s counsel told the juvenile court that mother was not present not because she lacked notice of the proceeding but because she was on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 hold, and counsel waived formal arraignment and an advisement of rights on her behalf and entered a general denial. The court found that mother was given notice as required by law, but could not be present because of the section 5150 hold. Mother points to no error in that ruling and we perceive none. (Cf. In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 903, 910 [notice of detention hearing held constitutionally adequate where social worker tried to meet with mother in hospital but was prevented by attending physician from doing so].)