In re B.O. CA2/4

Filed 11/14/24 In re B.O. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re B.O., a Person Coming B330871 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 22CCJP02514, 22CCJP02514A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 E.B. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court exit order terminating dependency jurisdiction over her child, B.O. She contends the order improperly requires her to pay for a professional visitation monitor when she cannot afford to do so, thereby depriving her of the right to parent B.O. Mother’s contention is forfeited for her failure to object to the order on this ground in the juvenile court. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND At the final review hearing in this dependency case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that Mother have monitored visits, without Father present, and that a professional monitor be used if parents were unable to agree on a monitor. Counsel for Father

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2

and B.O. agreed with the recommendation. Mother’s counsel objected to sole physical custody for Father, asserting that “some measure of physical custody would be appropriate” for Mother and requesting “one or two unmonitored visits per week and maybe one or two overnight visits per month.” The court asked Mother’s counsel if he had reviewed the proposed order prepared by Father’s counsel. He replied that he had, and stated “I don’t think it’s, you know, anything my client would agree to.” He “renew[ed his] request for some sort of carveout for Mother to have maybe a few unmonitored overnight visits per month.” The court asked Father’s counsel if the proposed order “anywhere indicate[s] that Mother’s visit – if parents can not [sic] agree on a monitor, it’s going to have to be a professional monitor paid for by Mother?” Father’s counsel confirmed it did and directed the court to the pertinent portion of the order. Mother’s counsel said nothing. The court denied Mother’s request for unmonitored and overnight visitation. The court stated it was “terminating jurisdiction with the order prepared” by Father’s counsel, as modified in ways that are not relevant here. The court told Mother’s counsel, “I note your objections to the juvenile custody order and this court’s orders. Those are overruled.” It then asked if there was anything further; only Father’s counsel raised any issues. The exit order, filed July 11, 2023, set forth a detailed visitation schedule. As relevant here, it provided that “All in person and telephonic visitation by [Mother] with [B.O.] shall be supervised by an adult, over the age of eighteen (18) years old, and mutually agreed to by both parents in writing. In the event the parents are unable to agree to a nonprofessional monitor,