In re M.J. CA2/6

Filed 10/18/21 In re M.J. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re M.J., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B311428 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J072332) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.H. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s visitation orders, commonly known as “exit orders,” entered upon the dismissal of her daughter M.J.’s dependency proceeding. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4.)1 The court granted sole legal and physical custody

All statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code.

of the 14-year-old to her father, S.J., but ordered that “mother shall have unsupervised visitation with [M.J.] at a minimum of 2 times per week for 2-3 hours each visit. Days can vary and will be contingent [upon M.J.’s] schedule. The father . . . has discretion to allow for more days, hours, and overnight visits.” Mother contends that the evidence supported an order for more weekly unsupervised visits and that granting father discretion to allow more visits was an unlawful delegation of the juvenile court’s authority. We conclude mother forfeited these arguments by failing to raise them in the juvenile court. In any event, the minimum weekly visitation order is supported by the evidence and the order allowing father to permit additional visitation is not unlawful since he only has the authority to increase the visitation ordered by the court, not to eliminate it altogether. (See In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123; In re A.C. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 796, 800.) We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As we explained in our earlier opinion, “[t]his dependency proceeding involves a mother who became convinced her daughter, M.J. . . . was seriously ill even though she has only minor health issues. After M.J.’s doctors expressed concern about the number of unwarranted medical appointments and resultant school absences, Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a petition under . . . section 300, subdivision (b)(1) seeking to declare M.J. a dependent of the juvenile court and to place her in her father's sole custody. Mother and father previously had joint custody.” (In re M.J. (Dec. 23, 2020, B305763) [nonpub. opn.].) “Following a dispositional evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition, finding that M.J. . . . was at a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because of