In re M.B. CA3

Filed 11/7/13 In re M.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re M. B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF C073071 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JD232052) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K. B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

K. B., the mother of 13-year-old M. B., appeals from an order of the Sacramento County Juvenile Court granting a request to change a court order filed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (department). (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 388, 395.) The order removed M. B. from mother’s custody, placed her in her father’s

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

custody under dependent supervision, and granted mother regular visitation as frequent as is consistent with the well-being of M. B. Mother appeals contending the visitation order, as orally pronounced by the juvenile court, erroneously delegated to M. B. discretion to determine whether any visitation would occur. Mother claims this is so even though the formal written order expressly provides that “the child shall not be given the option to consent to, or refuse, future visits.” Mother argues her claim is cognizable notwithstanding her failure to raise it in the juvenile court. The department responds that the appeal is moot , mother forfeited her contention by failing to raise it in the juvenile court, and the court did not delegate its authority to the child. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Originating Circumstances The family has prior child welfare history including referrals for emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. With the exception of a substantiated physical abuse allegation against mother in 2007, the allegations were deemed “inconclusive” or “unfounded.” On December 15, 2011, the department received a referral alleging that M. B. and her sibling H. B., who had been in father’s care pursuant to a department safety plan, were facing an “unsafe situation” because the family law court awarded mother sole custody of the children.2 The next day, the department social worker conducted several interviews. A hospital social worker told her that mother had brought H. B. to the emergency department after H. B. attempted suicide. H. B. claimed she had swallowed more than