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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B322384

 (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.
2

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 

Institutions Code section 3001petition, 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.
3

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.” 
4

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.)
5

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.
6

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.