In re D.U. CA3

Filed 6/16/15 In re D.U. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

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

In re D.U., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C076931 Law.

YOLO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JV140016) EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Derrick U. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders as to minor D.U. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 Father contends the court’s order on visitation impermissibly delegated absolute discretion to the minor to decide whether visitation will

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

occur. Concluding this contention is forfeited because father did not object to the order when it was made, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In light of our disposition, we need not recite the facts in detail. On January 16, 2014, Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services (the department) filed a petition as to the 12-year-old minor under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (g), and (i), alleging that father physically and psychologically abused the minor, and mother’s whereabouts were unknown.2 At the initial hearing on January 17, 2014, the juvenile court ordered the minor detained. Father was to receive two visits by the next court date if the minor was willing. At a hearing on January 28, 2014, after speaking to the minor outside father’s presence, the juvenile court found it would be detrimental to the minor to force him to have visitation with father at that time. After his removal from father’s custody, the minor was referred to Yolo Family Service Agency (YFSA) for individual counseling. He attended sessions on March 20 and March 26, 2014, but refused to complete the second session. During an April 14, 2014, telephone conversation with the social worker, the minor’s counselor stated that the minor had had suicidal ideation; she provided crisis intervention information to the caregiver and referred the minor for a higher level of mental health care. The next day, the caregiver informed the counselor that the minor refused to attend further sessions with her. At a contested jurisdiction hearing on April 18, 2014, the minor testified that he did not want to be around father at all, even if others were in the room. The minor did not want to return to father because the minor did not think father would ever change.