In re Joseph R.
Karen R. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her three-year-old son, Joseph.[1] Prior to the termination hearing, appellant petitioned to modify ( 388) an order denying her reunification services; the court had denied her services due to her extensive and chronic history of drug abuse ( 361.5, subd. (b)(13)). In the midst of the evidentiary hearing on both appellants petition and the recommendation to terminate her parental rights, her attorney requested a continuance, which the court denied for lack of good cause. Appellant, who was testifying on direct examination when the court called a noon recess, had failed to return to court. Thereafter, the court denied appellants modification petition, rejected her argument that termination would be detrimental to Joseph, and, having found the child adoptable, terminated parental rights.
She contends on appeal that the superior court erred by denying each of her requests. Respondent Fresno County Department of Child and Family Services (the department) responds the disentitlement doctrine (see MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271) should prevent her from raising these arguments. On review, we have assumed without discussion that the disentitlement doctrine is inapplicable here. Having evaluated the merits of appellants complaints, Court affirm.
Comments on In re Joseph R.