In re John L.

Filed 4/13/07 In re John L. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Elizabeth L. appeals the judgments declaring her minor sons, John L. and Joseph L. (together the minors), dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) and removing them from her custody. Elizabeth contends the court erred by not making a specific visitation order. We affirm the judgments.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed petitions in the juvenile court on behalf of eight-year-old John and six-year-old Joseph alleging Elizabeth was unable to care for them because her methamphetamine use caused her to have auditory and visual hallucinations. The court detained the minors with a relative and ordered liberal, supervised visitation for Elizabeth.

Elizabeth's case plan objectives included maintaining a relationship with the minors by following visitation plan conditions for liberal, supervised visits to be arranged by the social worker at an Agency approved facility. As Elizabeth progressed with services, Agency would decrease the level of visitation supervision, eventually leading to unsupervised and overnight visits.

Elizabeth was present with counsel at a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing. She did not cross-examine the social worker or present any evidence. The court sustained the allegations of the petitions, removed the minors from parental custody and placed them with a relative. The court found Elizabeth's case plan was appropriate, ordered Agency to provide Elizabeth with services consistent with that case plan, and ordered Elizabeth to comply with those services. The court gave Agency discretion to allow unsupervised, overnight and 60-day visits with the concurrence of minors' counsel. The court also ordered its prior orders to remain in full force and effect.

DISCUSSION

Elizabeth contends the court abdicated its responsibility to make a visitation order by giving complete discretion to Agency to decide whether and when visits would occur. She asserts the court improperly approved Agency's case plan regarding visitation rather than specifying the minimum number of visits to which she was entitled each month.

A

As a general rule, a parent's failure to object or raise certain issues in the juvenile court prevents the parent from claiming error on appeal. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502.) Application of the forfeiture rule, although not automatic, is designed to keep litigants from acquiescing and later seeking relief for error that could have been prevented or cured. (In re S.B., supra, at p. 1293; In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 412.) Failure to enforce the forfeiture rule is manifestly unfair to the adverse party and the court because it would permit a parent to deliberately remain silent and permit the proceedings to reach a conclusion in which the parent could acquiesce if favorable and avoid if unfavorable. (In re Riva M., supra, at p. 412.)

Here, the report prepared for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, made available to Elizabeth, contained a provision for supervised visitation, with a decrease in the level of supervision and eventual unsupervised visits, including overnight. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Elizabeth did not object to the proposed visitation order as not sufficiently specific or as an improper delegation of the court's authority. When the court adopted Agency's case plan for visitation, including giving Agency discretion to allow unsupervised, overnight and 60-day visits, Elizabeth did not ask for a more specific order. By her silence and acquiescence, Elizabeth has forfeited her right to claim error on appeal. (In re Lorenzo C., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339.)

B

In any event, the court did not abdicate its duty regarding visitation. A visitation order must specify whether visitation will occur. (In re Randalynne G. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1164; In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 756.) Although the court may not delegate this fundamental judicial decision, it may delegate decisions such as the time, place and manner of visitation. (In re Jennifer G., supra, at p. 757; In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) The ministerial tasks of overseeing the right to visits, as defined by the court, can and should be delegated to the persons or entity best able to perform them. (Ibid.)

Here, the court ordered Agency to provide Elizabeth with services consistent with her case plan, which specifically provided for liberal, supervised visits. The court also ordered all prior orders to remain in full force and effect, including an order for liberal, supervised visits made at the detention hearing. Further, the court's order giving Agency discretion to allow unsupervised, overnight and 60-day visits with the concurrence of minors' counsel presupposes the existence of an order that visitation will occur. There is no showing Elizabeth has not received the visitation to which she is entitled.

Nevertheless, Elizabeth contends the order was improper because it did not specify the frequency and length of visits, and thus the court delegated all authority over visitation to Agency. However, only when the court abdicates its duty to determine whether any visitation will occur does it improperly delegate its authority. (In re Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009.) No such improper delegation occurred here.

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.