IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Calaveras)
August 30, 2011
IN RE B.L. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. CALAVERAS COUNTY WORKS AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
M.S., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. 10JD5077, 10JD5078, 10JD5079)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
In re B.L. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
M.S. appeals from a dispositional order on an original petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342. At this hearing, the juvenile court ordered that appellant's oldest child, B.L., remain a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b); ordered him retained in out-of-home custody, and ordered that unsupervised visitation be permitted, "So long as visitation is not detrimental to the child's well-being."
Appellant's only argument on appeal is that the juvenile court improperly delegated the power to determine visitation to respondent Calaveras County Works and Human Services Agency (the Agency). Because appellant's claim is limited to the legality of a visitation order, we omit a recitation of the underlying facts and procedural background. We find appellant has forfeited her claim on appeal.
Appellant, who was present with counsel at the dispositional hearing, did not object to the visitation order in the juvenile court. Accordingly, her claim on appeal is forfeited. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502 [claims not raised in juvenile court are forfeited on appeal].) Even had appellant raised her objection in the juvenile court, however, her claim fails.
In fashioning a visitation order, the court may delegate the responsibility of managing the details of visitation--including time, place, and manner--but not the decision whether visitation will occur. (In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374.) In In re Moriah T., this court upheld an order entered at an 18-month review hearing for the father to visit "'regularly'" with the children "'consistent with the[ir] well-being . . . and at the discretion of [the social services agency] as to time, place, and manner.'" (Id. at p. 1371.) Because the juvenile court's order mandated regular visitation, the social services agency was not given absolute discretion to decide whether visits would occur. (Ibid.) We concluded it was not an improper delegation of authority to allow the social services agency to determine the frequency and length of visits when the order provided for regular visitation. (Id. at pp. 1376- 1377.)
The visitation order from which appellant appeals here did not mandate regular visitation, nor did it provide for a minimum amount of visitation. However, the juvenile court issued a subsequent order for visitation requiring the Agency to schedule one hour of unsupervised visitation between B.L. and appellant each month. Such an order, which leaves to the Agency the details of when and where the visitation is to occur is an appropriate order. (In re Moriah T., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1376-1377.) Accordingly, even if appellant had preserved her claim for appeal, no further relief can be granted.
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.