In re K.H. CA2/1

Filed 6/22/23 In re K.H. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 ONE
In re K.H., a Person Coming Under B322384
the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP08255)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
APRIL H.,
Objector and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ashley Price, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Maryann M. Goode, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Kelly G. Emling, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________
In these dependency proceedings April H. (mother), appeals
from a juvenile court’s visitation order, contending the court
abused its discretion by denying her last-minute request for a
continuance and in instituting an unclear visitation scheme. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Because mother’s only contentions on appeal pertain to
procedural issues, we will limit the presentation of facts.
The family consists of mother, April H. (father, who is not
party to this appeal), the minor K.H., and her six siblings, five of
whom are subjects of this appeal (collectively Minors B through
G).
On June 26, 2019, the juvenile sustained a Welfare and
1
Institutions Code section 300 petition, finding Minors B through
G were at substantial risk of serious physical injury because (1)
the parents inappropriately physically disciplined them and
mother told them not to disclose the abuse, (2) mother had a
history of substance abuse and failed to protect the children while
under the influence, (3) the parents failed to provide the children
with basic necessities, including medical care, and (4) the parents
failed to protect the children from sexual abuse by a cousin and
told the children not to speak about the abuse.
1
Undesignated statutory references will be to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
2
Over the next two years, father complied with the case plan
but mother failed to satisfy requirements regarding a drug and
alcohol program, drug testing, and parenting, and only partially
complied with visitation requirements. Visitation with K.H., in
particular, was very poor, causing the child serious emotional and
psychological harm. The court continued father’s reunification
services but terminated mother’s services, and found that
visitation with mother was detrimental to the children. It
ordered that mother have no contact and no visits with the
children.
On July 8, 2021, the court ordered the children returned to
father’s care with family maintenance services. Mother agreed
with the placement. That portion of the family now resides in
Texas, while mother resides in California.
A year later, mother was given notice of a status review
hearing to be held on July 6, 2022, but failed to appear. Mother’s
counsel was present, and had tried several times that morning to
get her on the phone, without success. The court paused
proceedings to allow mother to join telephonically, but counsel
was again unable to reach her.
Counsel represented that mother was “very concerned
about the outcome” of the hearing, and asked for a continuance or
second call to give her an opportunity to appear. The court
denied the request and proceeded with the hearing.
The court ordered that mother have “monitored virtual
visits in a therapeutic setting to occur a minimum of once per
month.” It granted “discretion to liberalize Mother’s visits upon
the recommendation of the conjoint therapist,” and ordered that
“the conjoint therapist . . . be provided with copies of all
necessary reports.”
3
Mother’s counsel responded to the visitation order as
follows: “As far as the therapeutic visitation, it seems that if the
court makes an order that visits can occur in a therapeutic
setting or conjoint especially [sic] be good . . . . The detriment is
not needed. The therapeutic setting provides sufficient
safeguards regarding the children’s wellbeing and visitation with
the children.”
On July 13, 2022, the court terminated jurisdiction.
Mother filed a timely appeal from the July 6, 2022
visitation order.
DISCUSSION
A. Continuance
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in
denying her request for a brief delay of the visitation hearing.
We disagree.
A juvenile court exercises broad control over dependency
proceedings. (In re Kelly D. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 433, 439.) For
example, the decision to grant or deny a requested continuance is
committed to the sound discretion of the court. (In re D.Y. (2018)
26 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1053.) Even where a party requests not a
continuance per se but only a brief delay in proceedings, for
example to get a party on the telephone line, the court enjoys
discretion to grant or deny the request as circumstances dictate.
(See In re Hunter W. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1465.) We will
reverse a court’s exercise of this discretion only upon a showing
that it “ ‘ “exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more
inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for
that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th
295, 318-319.)
4
Here, nothing in the record suggests delaying the visitation
hearing to get mother on the telephone would have made any
difference. Mother had already been notified of the hearing and
represented (through counsel) that it was important to her. Her
counsel had tried unsuccessfully to reach her on the phone
several times before the hearing, and was granted an opportunity
during the hearing to try again. Mother’s counsel did not
represent at the hearing that mother was in fact reachable, and
on appeal mother again fails to contend she was reachable. We
therefore conclude the court acted within its discretion in denying
a brief delay to get mother on the phone.
B. Visitation Order
Mother contends the final visitation orders are confusing
and impracticable. We deem the contention forfeited.
When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a
dependent child, it may issue an order determining custody and
visitation as it relates to the child. (§ 362.4; In re Roger S. (1992)
4 Cal.App.4th 25, 30.) We review a visitation exit order for abuse
of discretion. (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.)
However, an appellant generally may not complain of an
error the appellant acceded to at trial. (Pioneer Const., Inc. v.
Global Investment Corp. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 161, 169.) The
forfeiture rule “prevent[s] a party from standing by silently until
the conclusion of the proceedings.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132
Cal.App.4th 212, 221-222.)
Here, mother’s counsel raised no objection to the visitation
order. On the contrary, counsel stated that the order “provides
sufficient safeguards regarding the children’s wellbeing and
visitation with the children.”
Any contrary claim on appeal is forfeited.
5
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
BENDIX, J.
6