continuance of any hearing in California

2023(In re D.N., supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 762.) “Extraordinary circumstances exist when ‘inadequate services’ are offered by the child welfare agency or ‘an external force over which [the parent has] no control’ prevented the parent from completing a case plan.” (Ibid.) Examples include cases where a parent never receives reunification services or a reunification plan over the 18-month reunification period (see Mark N., at p. 1017; In re Dino E., at p. 1778); the parent was hospitalized for most of the reunification period but demonstrated an “impeccable record of visitation and efforts to comp

2023(In re D.N., supra, 56 Cal.App.5th at p. 762.) “Extraordinary circumstances exist when ‘inadequate services’ are offered by the child welfare agency or ‘an external force over which [the parent has] no control’ prevented the parent from completing a case plan.” (Ibid.) Examples include cases where a parent never receives reunification services or a reunification plan over the 18-month reunification period (see Mark N., at p. 1017; In re Dino E., at p. 1778); the parent was hospitalized for most of the reunification period but demonstrated an “impeccable record of visitation and efforts to comp

2002(In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 955-956 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ]; In re Dino E. [(1992)] 6 Cal.App.4th [1768,] 1778 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ].) The Courts of Appeal have held the answer to the present dilemma is found in section 352, which authorizes a continuance of any hearing upon a showing of good *1466 cause.

2002(In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 955-956 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ]; In re Dino E. [(1992)] 6 Cal.App.4th [1768,] 1778 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ].) The Courts of Appeal have held the answer to the present dilemma is found in section 352, which authorizes a continuance of any hearing upon a showing of good *1466 cause.

2002(In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 955-956 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ]; In re Dino E. [(1992)] 6 Cal.App.4th [1768,] 1778 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ].) The Courts of Appeal have held the answer to the present dilemma is found in section 352, which authorizes a continuance of any hearing upon a showing of good *1466 cause.

2002(In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 955-956 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ]; In re Dino E. [(1992)] 6 Cal.App.4th [1768,] 1778 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ].) The Courts of Appeal have held the answer to the present dilemma is found in section 352, which authorizes a continuance of any hearing upon a showing of good *1466 cause.

2023In evaluating the minor’s interest, the court “shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” (Ibid.) By its terms, the statutory discretion to continue “any hearing” under section 352 extends to the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a)(1); e.g., In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 [“section 352 [was enacted] so a party could continue the section 366.26 hearing”]; Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.

2002(In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 955-956 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1214 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 ]; In re Dino E. [(1992)] 6 Cal.App.4th [1768,] 1778 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ].) The Courts of Appeal have held the answer to the present dilemma is found in section 352, which authorizes a continuance of any hearing upon a showing of good *1466 cause.

2023In evaluating the minor’s interest, the court “shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” (Ibid.) By its terms, the statutory discretion to continue “any hearing” under section 352 extends to the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a)(1); e.g., In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 [“section 352 [was enacted] so a party could continue the section 366.26 hearing”]; Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.

2015(See Denny H. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1510-1511 .) Thus, an 18-month hearing may be continued if “no reasonable reunification services have ever been offered or provided to a parent” (Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1017 ), and the time frame for reunification services may be extended if “no reunification plan was ever developed ….” (In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777 .) Further, in In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1797-1799 (Elizabeth R.), reunification 10. services were extended because the mother was hospitalized during mu

2023In evaluating the minor’s interest, the court “shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” (Ibid.) By its terms, the statutory discretion to continue “any hearing” under section 352 extends to the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a)(1); e.g., In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 [“section 352 [was enacted] so a party could continue the section 366.26 hearing”]; Mark N., supra, 60 Cal.App.