Latasha W. v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 5/4/06 Latasha W. v. Sup. Ct. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| LATASHA W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B190735 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK61888) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate. S. Patricia Spear, Judge. Petition granted.
Martha A. Matthews for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
No appearance for real parties in interest Charles W. and Kenya D.
THE COURT*:
On December 23, 2005, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of Latasha W., a minor who will be turning 18 on Monday, May 8, 2006. The petition alleged that Latasha's father had physically abused her and had excluded her from his house without making any arrangements for her care.
When the petition was filed, Latasha was residing in the home of her paternal aunt in Palmdale.
On May 2, 2006, counsel for all parties appeared in the juvenile court for what was supposed to be a contested adjudication. At the start of the hearing, Latasha's counsel advised the court that although Latasha had told her she intended to appear for the adjudication, counsel had just learned that Latasha would be unable to attend because Latasha's aunt's car broke down. Counsel asked that the matter be continued to a date later in the week so that the adjudication could take place before Latasha turned 18.
Although counsel for both of Latasha's parents objected, their objections were based solely on their contention that the petition should be dismissed (as the Department had recommended). Neither counsel for the parents, nor counsel for the Department, claimed that anyone would be prejudiced if the matter was continued to a date later in the week.
The juvenile court continued the matter to May 25, claiming that it had â€
