Opinion
B326135 B330369
07-26-2024
In re NATALIE G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. LUIS G., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 22CCJP03935A-B, Stephen C. Marpet, Commissioner. Affirmed.
William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WILEY, J.
We affirm a juvenile court custody order granting a mother sole legal custody of her daughter because the child's father forfeited his appellate arguments in the juvenile court.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition on behalf of the family's two children-a teenage girl and boy-after a caller reported the father repeatedly struck the boy with a belt and a phone charger one morning in September 2022. The petition noted other violence by the father against the son and asserted the mother failed to protect the child from the father's violence. An amended petition added allegations of domestic violence between the parents.
The parents contested jurisdiction at the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The mother's counsel argued, among other things, her client had taken protective steps including ending her relationship with the father. The father's counsel explained the father's version of the most recent incident with his son and denied any physical violence with the mother. This counsel submitted on returning the children to the mother.
The juvenile court dismissed the domestic violence allegations but sustained the allegations involving the father's physical abuse of his son, the risk of harm to the daughter, and the mother's failure to protect. The court removed the children from the father and placed them with the mother. The court also ordered monitored visitation for the father and various services for the parents and the children. The father appealed these orders.
At a June 2023 review hearing, the parties agreed on closing the case as to the daughter. The court terminated jurisdiction and entered a juvenile court custody order as to this child. (See Welf. &Inst. Code, § 362.4.)
Regarding custody, the court said it was awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody, with monitored visits for the father. The court then discussed case plan programs the father needed to complete.
The father's counsel responded, "I just wanted to confirm. I think the recommendation was joint legal." The court and the Department's counsel confirmed this. Then the Department's counsel asked to go off the record.
The parties and the court held a discussion off the record. When they went back on the record, the court said, "I am making the custody order for Natalie sole legal, physical and primary to Mother." No one objected or commented on custody. The court went on to discuss visitation, services, and the son's case.
The father appealed this custody order. We consolidated his new appeal (B330369) with his appeal from the disposition orders (B326135).
The father's sole appellate contention is the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the mother sole legal custody of the daughter when terminating jurisdiction.
The mother and the Department filed letters stating they take no position on the father's appeal.
The father forfeited his challenge to the juvenile court custody order by acceding to the order without objection. (See In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 974.) At the hearing, the father could have raised the issues he now claims have import, opposing counsel could have responded, and the court could have brought all sides together and corrected any perceived problems on the spot. Perhaps this happened off the record. The father's silence on the record extinguishes his current challenge to the custody order.
The father articulates no compelling reason for us to decide this consolidated appeal. He may seek legal custody of his daughter at the family law court. (See In re J.M. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 95, 115.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the challenged juvenile court orders.
We concur: STRATTON, P. J., VIRAMONTES, J.