In re C.B. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2023 No. D080868Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant forfeited her challenge to the juvenile court's exit orders by failing to object in the trial court, and that even on the merits, the orders did not constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court improperly delegated judicial authority by failing to specify visitation exchange locations and transportation costs.
Whether the appellant forfeited her claim of error by failing to object to the exit orders in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A party generally forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to object in the trial court.”

“The exit orders do not vest Father with “absolute” discretion to determine whether visitation will occur.”

“Should transportation costs or location of exchanges become an obstruction to C.B.’s visitation with Mother the parties “would be permitted to raise those claims in the family court, and a family court judge would make the final decision””

Filed 1/5/23 In re C.B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. IMPERIAL COUNTY D080868 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JJP000742) Plaintiff and Respondent,

T.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco D. Nunez, Judge. Affirmed. Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Eric R. Havens, County Counsel, Kelly Ranasinghe, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. T.B. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s August 22, 2022 exit orders terminating dependency jurisdiction over her son, C.B.; awarding sole legal and physical custody of C.B. to D.B. (Father); and establishing specific

dates for visitation, but failing to designate an exchange location or specify who was responsible for C.B.’s visitation transportation costs. Mother contends the orders provided Father with the sole discretion to determine whether he would demand that she pay for visits and thus improperly delegated to him the authority to determine whether visitation would actually occur. Because this improper delegation constitutes an abuse of the juvenile court’s discretion, she requests that we vacate the exit orders and remand the matter for a new hearing.1 We disagree with Mother’s contentions and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In December 2019, the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3003 petition alleging that Mother was neglecting 14-year-old C.B. based on, among other things, her history of overdosing on prescribed medication. At the detention hearing, the court made a prima facie finding and temporarily placed C.B. with Mother. At this time, Father lived in Texas and visited C.B. once or twice a year for about ten days at a time. At the disposition hearing in February 2020, the court declared C.B. a dependent, maintained him with Mother and ordered the Department to provide family maintenance services to Mother.

In re C.B. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

AI Brief