In re B.E. CA4/3

Filed 3/12/25 In re B.E. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re B.E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G064106, G063693 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. DP024000-004, v. 22DP1048A)

T.E. et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Goodkin, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant (Father).

The Law Office of Richard L. Knight and Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant (Mother). Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torez and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors. * * * Father (and Mother through a joinder) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for his two children Br.E. and Bl.E. He raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends it was error for the court to order no visitation after terminating reunification services. We conclude the court’s finding that such visitation would have been detrimental was supported by substantial evidence, and thus no visitation was required. Second, he contends it was error to select adoption as the permanent plan because the prospective adoptive parent (the paternal grandmother) had a spouse, and there was no evidence in the record that the spouse had consented to the adoption pursuant to Family Code section 8603. We conclude that argument was forfeited by failing to raise it in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS I. THE PETITION AND JURISDICTIONAL HEARING In September 2022, SSA filed a petition against Mother and Father alleging they had provided their two children, Br.E (age 9) and Bl.E (age 7) an unstable home environment and had exposed them to criminal activity. Mother and Father had been arrested and incarcerated for car theft, and there was no one available to care for the children. The family was