In re S.H.

Filed 6/27/06 In re S.H. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Robin Kesler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Affirmed.

John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

C.C.L. (Mother) appeals from a dependency court visitation order. She contends that the court improperly delegated discretion to her children's legal guardians to establish the frequency of visitation, and to shorten visits if the guardians found that matters were deteriorating. Mother did not object to the visitation order at the time it was made. As a result, she has forfeited her right to challenge the order on appeal.

FACTS

Mother lost custody of her five children in 2002. Two of the children are the focus of this appeal: S.H. (born in 1992) and S.F. (born in 1994). A juvenile petition was sustained against Mother on two counts: (1) the children were exposed to domestic violence, and (2) Mother has a 2002 criminal conviction for children endangerment stemming from an incident in which Mother left S.H. (then age 10) and S.F. (then age 8) in the care of their 12-year-old brother; the children rode a public bus for five hours at night, without supervision, until the bus driver arranged for them to be taken into protective custody.

S.H. and S.F. were placed in foster care with the J. Family. The boys adjusted well to living with the foster family. Mother initially had overnight visits with the boys on weekends. Later, her visitation became sporadic. She did not visit the boys from October 31, 2003, until February 2004. Mother was evasive about her employment status and living situation.

A contested permanent placement plan hearing was held in May 2004. Mother claimed to have leased a three-bedroom home in the Antelope Valley, but stated that she has not paid rent on the home in nearly a year because the landlord wanted to help Mother get back on her feet. A court-appointed special advocate interviewed the landlord; the landlord denied the existence of a rental agreement and had not seen Mother in six months.

The court found that Mother's testimony was not believable, because no landlord would enter a lease then refuse rent payments for year. The court concluded that Mother had no suitable housing for the children; therefore, the children could not be released to her custody and subjected to a â€