legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re M.B.
K. B., the mother of 13-year-old M. B., appeals from an order of the Sacramento County Juvenile Court granting a request to change a court order filed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (department). (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] §§ 388, 395.) The order removed M. B. from mother’s custody, placed her in her father’s custody under dependent supervision, and granted mother regular visitation as frequent as is consistent with the well-being of M. B.
Mother appeals contending the visitation order, as orally pronounced by the juvenile court, erroneously delegated to M. B. discretion to determine whether any visitation would occur. Mother claims this is so even though the formal written order expressly provides that “the child shall not be given the option to consent to, or refuse, future visits.” Mother argues her claim is cognizable notwithstanding her failure to raise it in the juvenile court.
The department responds that the appeal is moot , mother forfeited her contention by failing to raise it in the juvenile court, and the court did not delegate its authority to the child. We affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale