In re A.M. CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/2/24 In re A.M. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re A.M., a Person Coming B327822
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________ Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06510A
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Tiana J. Murillo, Judge. Affirmed.
Pamela Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
A father appeals the termination of parental rights over his
daughter, A.M. He argues notice of the hearing was insufficient.
He forfeited this argument because his counsel did not raise it in
the juvenile court. We affirm.
A.M. was born in spring 2019. She lived with her mother.
The father was in prison for injuring the mother. When A.M. was
four months old, the juvenile court ordered her to be removed
from the mother.
A.M. was placed with a non-related extended family
member. She has remained in this placement throughout the
case.
The father had not met A.M. before he entered custody. He
was released after the case began. He had five virtual visits with
A.M. in early 2021.
In April 2021, the court terminated reunification services
for the parents.
The Department sent the father notices for permanency
planning hearings that were scheduled for November 2021 and
February 2022. The notices said the Department recommended
termination of parental rights. The court continued the
permanency planning hearing several times.
In September 2022, the Department sent a notice for a
review hearing with a recommendation of “Continued Adoptive
Planning (Parental Rights Not Terminated).” The court held a
hearing on September 22, 2022. It ordered the parties to submit
2
briefs on why it should not terminate parental rights at the next
hearing. The court continued the hearing to January 2023.
The father did not submit a brief.
On January 5, 2023, the court held the permanency
planning hearing. A.M. was three and a half years old.
Counsel represented the father, who did not attend the
hearing. The mother’s counsel asked the court to continue the
hearing because the mother was not available and because
counsel was not ready to proceed. The court asked the other
parties about the continuance request. The father’s counsel said,
“Submitted.”
The court said it did not interpret the mother to be raising
an issue of proper notice and said, “I just want to make sure that
is in fact the case that you are not raising a notice issue today.”
The mother’s counsel said she did not know whether the mother
received notice. The court asked, “[D]oes anyone else want to be
heard on notice . . . [?]” The father’s counsel did not respond.
The court found that notice was proper.
On the issue of termination of parental rights, the father’s
counsel argued, in full, “The last direction from my client is that
he does want to object to the court terminating parental rights, so
I’m making an objection to that on his behalf. Submitted.”
The court terminated parental rights.
The father appealed. He contends notice was improper
because the notice said the proceedings were for continued
adoptive planning and not for termination of parental rights.
We affirm because the father’s counsel did not raise an
issue of notice in the juvenile court. Failure to raise a notice
issue at the hearing waives it on appeal. (In re Gilberto M. (1992)
6 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198.) Counsel represented the father. The
3
court specifically asked if anyone wanted to raise a notice issue
and the father’s counsel was silent. The father therefore forfeited
this notice argument.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
4