(Super. Ct. No. JD222157)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The minor's mother challenges the juvenile court's visitation order entered as part of a permanent plan of guardianship with the maternal grandparents. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)*fn1 Mother forfeited her challenge, however, because she did not object to the visitation order in the juvenile court, but instead affirmatively supported it. We will affirm the order.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Juvenile dependency proceedings were initiated for the four-year-old minor based on the parents' psychiatric problems and their failure to take medication as prescribed. The petition, as later amended, alleged that the minor's sibling had previously been removed from the parents' custody as a result of the parents' mental disorders and that their parental rights were subsequently terminated as to the sibling. The minor had also been the subject of an earlier dependency proceeding shortly after her birth based on similar allegations, but she was returned to the parents' care after they successfully engaged in services.
In the instant proceeding, the minor was placed with the maternal grandparents. The juvenile court then sustained the allegations in the amended petition and denied the parents reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11) [parental rights over a sibling were severed and the parent has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problem leading to the sibling's removal].
According to the report for the section 366.26 hearing, although the minor was adoptable, she had a close emotional relationship with the maternal grandparents, who preferred guardianship. The minor had monthly supervised visits with her parents, which she enjoyed. The social worker recommended a permanent plan of guardianship, with visitation "as arranged with the guardian and subject to any reasonable conditions, including supervision, as the guardian considers necessary."
At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court ordered a permanent plan of guardianship with the maternal grandparents. Counsel for the minor stated, "I understand there may be some requests to include visitation in the order. I have no objection to that. But I do want it to be made clear that the guardian is able to determine whether any visitation is appropriate, I think, without the Court's provision. I think that it is necessary for them to have that ability." In response, mother's attorney reasserted that the minor should be returned to her parents, but she added that she was not requesting a trial in this matter. Mother's attorney then stated affirmatively that she was "supportive" of the recommended "continued contact order." Mother's counsel did not object to the suggestion by minor's counsel that the guardians have the ability to determine whether any visitation is appropriate.
The court ordered visitation for the parents "subject to any reasonable conditions, including supervision and at the frequency that the guardian believes to be in the [minor's] best interest and deems to be necessary. [¶] . . . [¶] With the understanding that as guardians of the [minor], it is the guardian's responsibility to look after and safeguard the best interest of that child. And that includes making decision[s] about the appropriateness of the [minor] spending time with anyone, including parents and extended family members."
Mother contends the juvenile court's visitation order gave too much discretion to the guardians regarding the frequency and duration of visits. Mother forfeited her challenge, however, because she did not object to the visitation order in the juvenile court, but instead affirmatively supported it.
"In dependency litigation, non-jurisdictional issues must be the subject of objection or appropriate motions in the juvenile court; otherwise those arguments have been waived and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. ...