In re J.M.
Filed 6/13/06 In re J.M. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re J.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E038846 (Super.Ct.No. SWJ003873) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert W. Nagby, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andrew M.
Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Lydia M.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Harry Zimmerman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
Lydia M. (mother) and Andrew M. (father) appeal from orders made at a six-month review hearing in their children's dependency case.[1] The girl is mildly autistic and presently six years old. The boy is almost nine years old. On appeal mother and father claim that the court violated their constitutional rights when it conducted the review hearing in their absence. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDUARAL HISTORY
On October 22, 2004, the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a referral regarding mother and father. The informant stated that the father had been observed hitting the mother approximately twice a week.
On November 10, 2004, a probation search was conducted at the family home. Nine grams of methamphetamine, scales and pipes were discovered during the search. Mother and father were arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine for sale and child endangerment, among other charges. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against both of them.
A petition was filed on behalf of the children on November 15, 2004, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.[2] On February 28, 2005, the court took jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) and declared the children to be dependents of the court. A reunification plan was approved by the court and both parents were ordered to participate. A six-month review hearing was set. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
On June 6, 2005, both mother and father sought to relieve their respective attorneys and proceed as their own attorneys. After explaining the pitfalls of self-representation, including Lincoln's well-known aphorism that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client, the court granted their motions.
DPSS filed the six-month review report on June 24, 2005. The report indicated that mother had two dirty drug tests during the reporting period. Father had tested negative three times. Both, on occasions, had refused drug testing when requested. Neither had made progress on, or met the objectives of, the reunification plans. Mother denied drug use, and neither believed that drug counseling was needed. The parents denied ever engaging in domestic violence.[3] The recommendation was to continue with reunification services, not return the children to the parents' custody and set the case for a 12-month review hearing.
The six-month review hearing was set for July 7, 2005. Mother and father received the review report on June 25, 2005. Each requested a continuance in order to further review the report. The court denied the continuance, but set the matter for a contested review hearing on August 9, 2005, telling them that should be sufficient time to review the report and prepare for the hearing.
Mother and father appeared for the hearing on August 9, 2005. Counsel for DPSS moved to receive into evidence an addendum report prepared for the hearing. Mother and father objected and requested a one-week continuance because they claimed that they had just received the report. In order to avoid a continuance of the hearing, counsel for DPSS withdrew the addendum from evidence and stated the intent to proceed on the original report only.
Counsel for DPSS and the minors were prepared to go forward with the hearing. Mother objected to the six-month review report being received into evidence as she disputed much of its content and had â€
