In re D.H. CA2/8

Filed 2/9/24 In re D.H. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

In re D.H., a Person Coming Under B325184 the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. CK84291C AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAMIEN H., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jennifer W. Baronoff, Commissioner. Affirmed. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Father, Damien H., appeals the juvenile court’s order appointing a legal guardian for his daughter D.H. without ordering visitation for father and, in the alternative, the court’s denial of his request for a continuance of the matter. We affirm. Substantial evidence—substantiated allegations that father sexually abused D.H.—supports the court’s conclusion that visitation with father would be detrimental to D.H. As such, the court was not required to order visitation for father under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, subdivision (c)(4)(C). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s request for a continuance to allow father, who was absent from the hearing, to challenge the sexual abuse allegations against him. Father’s counsel provided no explanation as to why father was absent from the hearing where visitation was at issue. Father failed to establish good cause for a continuance. BACKGROUND This appeal raises narrow questions in the context of long- running dependency proceedings. We limit our recitation of the facts to those pertinent to the issues before us. The underlying proceedings are older than D.H. Her brother was born in 2010 and became the subject of a dependency case 18 days after birth. Her sister was born in 2012 and became the subject of a dependency case seven days after birth. They were detained on various substantiated allegations that included neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and drug and alcohol use by one or more of the parents, and domestic violence between the parents.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.