In re Z.J. CA6

Filed 5/10/16 In re Z.J. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Z.J., a Person Coming Under the H042805 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP002364)

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.C. is the mother of K.C., age nine, and Z.J., age seven. Both children are dependents of the juvenile court. In this appeal, Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights as to Z.J., and ordering adoption as the permanent plan. In addition, Mother argues that the court erred in denying her request for a continuance of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing, because it violated her due process rights, and it was an abuse of discretion.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE2 The juvenile court case involving K.C. and Z.J. has been the subject of numerous appeals in this court, and the underlying facts are stated in this court’s opinions in prior appeals. To summarize, Mother had two children, K.C. and her brother Z.J., of whom she informally shared custody with their father. The Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department) initiated dependency proceedings after Z.J. suffered severe brain injuries that doctors considered non-accidental. The Department eventually concluded that the injuries had been sustained while Z.J. was in the home of Mother, but were likely caused by a third party and not either of the parents. On April 7, 2011, the juvenile court sustained original petitions as to both children under section 300. It placed Z.J. with the children’s paternal grandmother (Grandmother), while placing K.C. with Father under the supervision of the Department. After a series of events, the juvenile court removed K.C. from Father, and placed her with Grandmother. The children have been living with Grandmother, who was appointed their guardian in 2013. Mother failed to reunify with Z.J., and the matter proceeded to a section 366.26 hearing to terminate her parental rights. In preparation of the June 18, 2015 hearing, the Department filed a report regarding Z.J. recommending termination of Mother’s parental rights, and adoption by his Grandmother. At the June 18, 2015 hearing, Mother appeared telephonically, expressing her concern that if Z.J. were adopted, the Grandmother would not allow her to see him. The court set the matter for a settlement conference and contested section 366.26 hearing on August 3, 2015. At the beginning of the contested section 366.26 hearing on August 3, 2015, Mother’s counsel told the court that Mother was not present in person, but wished to appear telephonically. However, the court’s telephone system for appearance was not