Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On March 1, 2024, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging that Morena M. (mother) and Luis E. (father) created a detrimental and endangering environment for their six-year-old child, T.E. The petition alleged that in prior dependency proceedings father had sexually abused one of mother’s other children, K.M., and that mother continued to allow father access to the family home where T.E. and K.M. resided. The petition was also filed on behalf of K.M., but Luis E. is not K.M.’s father, and the juvenile court’s findings concerning K.M. are not germane to any issue raised on appeal.
On April 17, 2024, the juvenile court sustained the allegations against mother and father and removed T.E. from their care, granting father monitored visitation with T.E. three times per week. On August 28, 2025, the juvenile court held a judicial review hearing under section 364, terminated jurisdiction, and entered an order granting mother sole legal and physical custody of T.E. The court granted father monitored visitation “a minimum of 1 time per year for 3 hours per visit,” and specified that father’s visits could be monitored either by a mutually agreed-upon monitor approved by mother or by a professional monitor paid by father.
Father timely appealed the August 28, 2025 order, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion by requiring him to bear the cost of a professional monitor without first assessing his ability to do so. Mother contended that father forfeited this claim of error by failing to raise an objection in the juvenile court. Father did not file a reply brief or otherwise respond to mother’s forfeiture argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed that father forfeited the issue. The court explained that a party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court, and that forfeiture applies in juvenile dependency litigation to prevent a party from standing by silently until the conclusion of the proceedings. The court also noted that while appellate courts have discretion to excuse forfeiture, the California Supreme Court has made clear that such discretion should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.
Here, it was undisputed that father did not object to the possibility of bearing the cost of a professional monitor if he was unable to procure a monitor approved by mother. On appeal, father did not attempt to rebut mother’s forfeiture argument, nor did he argue that the court should exercise its discretion to reach the merits despite forfeiture. In the absence of any argument on the point, the Court of Appeal concluded that father had tacitly conceded the issue.
Because father had forfeited his only claim of error on appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s August 28, 2025 order. The opinion does not decide whether the juvenile court could properly require father to pay for a professional monitor; it resolves the appeal solely on forfeiture and tacit concession.
Key Takeaways
- A parent in a juvenile dependency case forfeits appellate review of a visitation order’s financial terms by failing to object to those terms in the juvenile court.
- Appellate courts have discretion to excuse forfeiture, but that discretion should be exercised rarely and only for important legal issues.
- Failing to respond to a forfeiture argument on appeal can be treated as a tacit concession that the issue has been forfeited.
- The Court of Appeal did not reach the merits of whether the juvenile court could require father to pay for a professional monitor; it affirmed solely because father failed to preserve the objection below.
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum opinion reinforces the strict application of forfeiture rules in juvenile dependency appeals, particularly when a visitation order attaches a financial condition such as payment for a professional monitor. It underscores that a parent must raise an objection to visitation costs at the trial level or risk losing appellate review of those terms, and it confirms that forfeiture doctrine applies in dependency litigation to prevent a party from standing by silently until the proceedings end.
The decision also illustrates that a failure to respond to a forfeiture argument in appellate briefing may be treated as a tacit concession, effectively ending the appeal without reaching the merits. Because the opinion is not certified for publication, it may not be cited or relied on except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).