Opinion
F077081
12-19-2018
In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Rebekah S. Sass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Rise A. Donlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17JD0133)
OPINION
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge. Rebekah S. Sass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Rise A. Donlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
K.M. appeals from the juvenile court's order made at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing. K.M. is the father of mother's youngest child, A.M. At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to mother's care, after it found she made substantial progress in her case plan. Reunification services were terminated for K.M., as he failed to participate in services. K.M. appeals only the juvenile court's visitation order, which read "visitation between [K.M.] and [A.M.] shall be supervised in accordance with the case plan." The Kings County Human Services Agency (Agency) argues, inter alia, that K.M. forfeited his challenge to the visitation order by failing to object to it in the juvenile court.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
We agree that K.M. forfeited his challenge to the visitation order. We therefore affirm that order on appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Detention , Jurisdiction and Disposition
In July 2017, Agency filed a section 300 petition alleging five-year-old D.R., three-year-old J.R., and two-month-old A.M. were at risk of harm due to ongoing domestic violence between the children's mother and K.M., presumed father of A.M. Mother acknowledged a history of domestic violence with K.M., in which he physically restrained her, prevented her from attending to the children, and punched holes in the wall near her head. The children witnessed the violence. Mother reported to Agency that the violence was escalating, and the previous week, K.M. intentionally damaged mother's vehicle. To escape the violence, mother attempted to live with her grandmother, but returned to K.M. because the grandmother made her feel like a burden.
In an Agency interview at the police department, K.M. behaved erratically. He admitted using methamphetamine three days prior, but minimized his drug use. He minimized the damage he caused to the wall and downplayed his aggressive behavior towards mother, but admitted he used his martial arts training to restrain her. K.M. was released from county jail several days later; two weeks later he had still not made himself available for visits with A.M.
D.R. described domestic violence between mother and K.M. and said she was "scared" of K.M. and being alone with him.
At the detention hearing July 19, 2017, the children were removed from the home and temporary placement and care vested with Agency. Visitation between K.M. and A.M. was to be supervised and arranged by Agency.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held August 9, 2017. At that time, the allegations of the petition were found true and the children removed from the home. Reunification services were offered to mother, to the father of D.R. and J.R., and to K.M., who was ordered to participate in a domestic violence prevention program, a batterer's intervention program, a mental health assessment, outpatient substance abuse classes, drug testing, and a 12-step program. The case plan stated Agency would arrange weekly supervised visits for the parents. K.M. was granted supervised visitation with A.M. "in accordance with the court-ordered case plan." A six-month review hearing was scheduled for January 31, 2018.
Six-month Review Hearing
The report prepared in anticipation of the six-month review hearing recommended reunification services for mother and both fathers be terminated and the children returned to mother with family maintenance services. At the time of the report, the children were on a 30-day trial visit with mother. Agency also asked that the case be transferred to Tulare County, where mother was living and starting school.
At the time of the January 31, 2018, report, K.M. was reported to be "not in compliance" with his case plan. He refused to complete a mental health screening, an inpatient drug treatment program, or parenting classes. He failed to meet social workers when they offered to help. K.M. did not drug test on October 17, 2017, due to claimed illness. He then refused to submit to a rescheduled drug test October 25, 2017, claiming he lost his identification. He remained resistant to drug testing, despite Agency providing him with a temporary identification card. K.M. visited A.M. only four times during this reporting period. At least one visit had to be canceled due to K.M.'s threats towards the social worker. Three of the visits were at the jail via telecom and lasted only 10 minutes each. During these visits K.M. failed to engage A.M. K.M. now claimed to be sober, had a job waiting for him when he was released, and was able to control his anger.
At the six-month hearing, K.M.'s counsel "generally" submitted on the recommendation but entered an objection to the termination of his services and stated K.M. was not requesting a contested hearing on the matter.
The juvenile court returned the children to mother under a family maintenance plan, finding she participated regularly in reunification services and made substantive progress. The juvenile court found K.M. failed to participate regularly or to make substantive progress in his treatment program and terminated reunification services for him. The juvenile court ordered that visitation between K.M. and A.M. "shall be supervised in accordance with the case plan." It further ordered that "[a]ll previous orders not in conflict with today's orders remain in full force and effect" and, without objection, transferred the matter to Tulare County, which went into effect February 9, 2018.
K.M. appeals from this order.
DISCUSSION
K.M. argues that the juvenile court erred by not specifying "the parameters of the visitation," namely how frequently visits would occur, whether visits should be supervised and, if supervised, if mother was allowed to supervise a visit. K.M. speculates that the failure to establish these parameters "may threaten the stability of A.M.'s placement with his mother, because [Agency] identified that they were concerned the mother would allow unauthorized contact between K.M. and A.M." He also contends the nonspecific visitation order may encourage mother to limit visitation, "which may exacerbate the power struggle in their relationship, placing A.M. at risk."
We find K.M. has forfeited this contention because he did not object to or disagree with the final visitation order. Although he and his attorney were present during the six-month review hearing, neither he nor his attorney raised the issue of visitation. K.M. and his attorney also did not object to the language of the visitation order.
A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to object in the trial court. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222.) Principles of forfeiture apply in dependency litigation and preclude a party from "standing by silently" until the conclusion of the proceedings. (Id. at p. 222.) "[An] appellate court's discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue." (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) That discretion must be exercised "with special care" in dependency proceedings because the proceedings involve considerations of permanency and stability in the well-being of children, issues of "paramount importance." (Ibid.)
Issues regarding visitation in dependency proceedings are forfeited on appeal by failure to raise the issue or to object in the juvenile court. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686 [parent forfeited challenge to unlawful delegation of visitation authority to parole officer by not raising issue at trial]; In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1001 [parent forfeited challenge to frequency of visitation by not objecting to visitation schedule]; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 641-642 [parent forfeited challenge to failure to provide for sibling visitation by not raising issue].) We disagree with K.M. that his counsel's objection to termination of reunification services at the six-month review hearing encompassed the specifications of the visitation order as well.
Forfeiture aside, the visitation order was proper. As stated earlier, when the juvenile court terminated family reunification services for K.M., the juvenile court ordered "[v]isitation between [K.M.] and [A.M.] shall be supervised in accordance with the case plan," which refers to the initial case plan filed with the juvenile court at the time of disposition. That plan, which referenced K.M., states, "The Social Worker[] will arrange weekly supervised visits for the parents." The juvenile court further ordered that "all previous orders not in conflict with [these] orders remain in full force and effect." Thus, the visitation order for K.M. remained the prior order of weekly supervised visitation arranged by Agency, as stated in the original case plan.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
MEEHAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POOCHIGIAN, Acting P.J. /s/_________
SNAUFFER, J.