Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ebony J.

Opinion

CROSKEY, Acting P. J. Ebony J.’s (Mother’s) daughter, Jasmine P. (Jasmine), was placed in a legal guardianship with Jasmine’s paternal grandmother (Grandmother). The order creating the legal guardianship did not specifically provide for any visitation between Mother and Jasmine. Mother contends that this was error, and seeks reversal of the order for that reason. We conclude there was no error, and affirm.

[619]Factual and Procedural Background1

Given the simple, primarily legal issue raised by this appeal, there is no need to go into all the facts related to Mother’s involvement in the dependency system. The facts relevant here are just that Mother lost, and never successfully regained, legal custody of Jasmine, bom in 1996. Mother had left Jasmine with Grandmother; Mother said it was by arrangement while she attended school; Grandmother and Jasmine’s father said there had been no such arrangement, and that Jasmine had lived with Grandmother since she was four months old.

The juvenile court concluded that Jasmine could not be returned safely to Mother, and agreed with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that the best permanent placement for her was a legal guardianship with Grandmother. The order, which was made on a form with boxes to be checked, stated that Jasmine was placed in a legal guardianship (and Grandmother signed the legal guardianship papers), but it also said Jasmine was placed in long-term foster care. The order made no provision for visitation between Mother and Jasmine, nor did it make any findings that visitation would be detrimental.

Contentions on Appeal

Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by failing to make an order for continuing visitation between Mother and Jasmine. Although she did not seek such an order at the trial court level, but instead raises the issue for the first time on appeal, she asserts that because the juvenile court had a mandatory duty either to make such an order or to find that visitation would be detrimental, she has not waived the issue on appeal.

Discussion

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 provides that the juvenile court must choose among the best of three possible alternatives when a dependent child cannot be returned to his or her parent or parents. Pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (b), in choosing among these alternatives “the court shall proceed pursuant to subdivision (c) [of section 366.26].”2 Subdivision (c)(4) provides, “If the court finds that adoption of the child or