Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services v. B.L.

Los Angeles, California family lawyer lawyer represented the Defendant in a parental rights termination action.



At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] hearing, the juvenile court ordered a legal guardianship for minors J.G. (born 2013) and D.G. (born 2016), with monitored visits for B.L. (mother) and E.G. (father). Mother appeals and contends the visitation orders improperly delegated to minors' caregivers authority to decide whether visitation would occur and who was suitable to monitor any visits. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) contends that mother forfeited her contentions by failing to raise them before the trial court and that the appealed orders were not an abuse of discretion.



* * *



FAMILY LAW. JUVENILE DEPENDENCY VISITATION ORDERS. The case addresses whether a juvenile court improperly delegated the authority to determine visitation details, including timing and monitoring arrangements, to the legal guardians of minors under a legal guardianship order pursuant to a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, and considers forfeiture of arguments due to failure to raise them at the trial court level.



FAMILY LAW. DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. The court examines the extent of permissible delegation by the juvenile court of visitation details to third parties, emphasizing that while details such as time, place, and manner can be delegated, the fundamental decision of whether visitation occurs must remain with the court.



APPELLATE PROCEDURE. FORFEITURE. The judgment explores the principle of forfeiture, noting that objections to court orders should be made at the trial level to avoid their forfeiture on appeal, thereby preventing appellate courts from considering arguments not previously raised.



Key Phrases Juvenile court orders. Legal guardianship. Monitored visitation. Dependency proceedings. Visitation discretion.

Affirmed