Opinion
C090600
05-22-2020
In re I.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MODOC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JP18011)
S.W., mother of the minor (mother), appeals from the juvenile court's order selecting guardianship as the permanent plan, giving the legal guardian discretion to determine whether visitation would occur at all, and terminating dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; unless otherwise stated, statutory section references that follow are found in the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Challenging only the visitation portion of the court's order, mother claims the order constituted an improper delegation of judicial powers and was therefore an abuse of the court's discretion.
The Modoc County Department of Social Services (Department) concedes the issue but argues it filed a request with the juvenile court to modify the visitation order and, after a hearing set for March 16, 2020, the modified visitation order would be entered and the issue would become moot.
In her reply brief, mother argues no visitation order was made at the March 16, 2020 hearing, as the court concluded it "has no jurisdiction and no orders are made." As such, the issue is not moot.
As we shall explain, mother has forfeited her claim on appeal by failing to object to the visitation order in the juvenile court. Because mother raises a single contention, we omit a recitation of the underlying facts and procedural background.
A party forfeits a claim that the juvenile court improperly delegated its visitation authority to a third party when he or she fails to object in the juvenile court. (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 685-686; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635, 640-642.) "The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]" (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 961-962.)
"[A]pplication of the forfeiture rule is not automatic. [Citations.]" (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293.) "But the appellate court's discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue. [Citations.] Although an appellate court's discretion to consider forfeited claims extends to dependency cases [citations], the discretion must be exercised with special care in such matters. 'Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings with their own set of rules, governed, in general, by the Welfare and Institutions Code.' [Citation.] Because these proceedings involve the well-being of children, considerations such as permanency and stability are of paramount importance. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
Here, mother was present with counsel at the September 30, 2019 selection and implementation hearing, from which this appeal was taken. She did not object to, or request modification of, the visitation order in the juvenile court. Had a timely objection been lodged, the juvenile court would have had an opportunity to timely address the objection and modify the order if necessary. By failing to object, mother tacitly consented to the order as phrased and has forfeited the ability to challenge it. Thus, her claim is not cognizable in the instant appeal.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
/s/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
MURRAY, J. /s/_________
KRAUSE, J.