Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
M.B., a 15-year-old dependent child, was removed from the care of her adoptive mother, A.B., amid allegations of ongoing abuse. M.B. had been placed with her mother in 2012 and legally adopted in 2017. Her two younger adoptive siblings, T.B. and A.B., ages 12 and 11, remained in mother's care and were not subject to the dependency proceedings. After M.B. ran away from home and moved into a youth shelter, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a dependency petition alleging that mother was no longer able or willing to provide for her. In June 2024, the juvenile court detained M.B. with mother's consent and ordered DCFS to facilitate sibling visitation twice a month in mother's home. Two months later, the court sustained the petition, denied mother reunification services, and continued the visitation order with T.B. and A.B.
Mother denied M.B. sibling visitation from the time it was ordered until March 2025, accusing M.B. of stealing, lying, influencing her younger siblings, introducing them to pornography, and sending inappropriate photographs. M.B. admitted stealing but explained the pornography incident, and social workers told mother the photographs were not inappropriate and recommended monitored visitation. At permanency review hearings between December 2024 and February 2025, mother's counsel objected that the court lacked jurisdiction; the court overruled the objections and admonished mother for stonewalling visitation without seeking review. In March 2025, mother permitted weekly telephone contact that she admitted "went well." At a June 2025 hearing, mother argued the government "shall not interfere" with her due process right to the care, custody, and control of her nondependent children, a right she called "jurisdictional." The court overruled the objection, directed her to "take action" if the children interacted inappropriately, and invited further briefing. Mother declined and appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first held that mother waived and forfeited her as-applied constitutional challenge to the sibling visitation statutes. Mother did not challenge the statutes' facial validity but contended they were applied unconstitutionally. She could have sought a writ from the June 2024 order, appealed the August 2024 and February 2025 orders, filed a section 388 modification petition, or heeded the court's direction to file supplemental briefing; having foregone these paths, she waived the claim. An as-applied challenge is also forfeited unless previously raised, and mother showed neither exception. Although Troxel v. Granville requires a court to consider and respect a presumed-fit parent's decision, mother argued only that the court lacked jurisdiction, leaving nothing that allowed the appellate court to conclude whether constitutional standards were applied correctly (citing In re L.M.).
The court also rejected mother's abuse-of-discretion challenge. A juvenile court abuses its discretion only when it exceeds the bounds of reason, and a reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence. The juvenile court expressly considered mother's concerns, upheld visitation, and advised her to take action if problems arose; the order sought to "preserve and strengthen" M.B.'s relationships with her legally recognized siblings under section 16002. The Court of Appeal discerned no abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A parent who believes a juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to order sibling visitation must promptly seek writ review, appeal, or file a modification petition rather than refuse compliance and raise the issue for the first time on appeal.
- An as-applied constitutional challenge to sibling visitation statutes is forfeited unless the parent asked the juvenile court to apply the specific constitutional standard and weigh parental rights against other factors, rather than arguing the court lacked jurisdiction entirely.
- Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.2, 388, and 16002 authorize courts to order visitation between dependent children and their nondependent siblings to preserve and strengthen sibling relationships.
- A reviewing court will not reweigh conflicting evidence about a dependent child's alleged influence on nondependent siblings when the juvenile court expressly considered the parent's concerns and found visitation consistent with the children's safety and well-being.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural hurdles parents face when challenging sibling visitation orders in dependency proceedings: objections framed as jurisdictional absolutes do not preserve nuanced as-applied constitutional arguments about the weight given to parental rights. It also confirms that California's sibling visitation statutes authorize courts to maintain family bonds between dependent and nondependent children over a parent's objection, provided the court considers safety and well-being. For practitioners, the case is a reminder to raise constitutional standards explicitly in the juvenile court and to use writ and appeal mechanisms promptly rather than engaging in prolonged noncompliance.