Filed 3/14/24 In re Journee E. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re JOURNEE E., a Person 

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B328354

 (Los Angeles County Super. 

 Ct. No. 22CCJP02252B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRIA E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Pete R. Navarro, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Andria E. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders

at the six-month review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e).1 At the hearing, 

the court found substantial risk of detriment to four-year-old 

Journee E. if she were returned to Mother’s physical custody, and

the court continued Mother’s family reunification services for 

another six months. The court also ordered an evaluation of a 

maternal great-aunt who lived in Texas for possible adoption of 

Journee. On appeal, Mother contends the juvenile court abused 

its discretion in failing at the six-month review hearing to 

appoint the maternal great-grandmother, with whom Journee 

was placed, as Journee’s legal guardian and to terminate 

jurisdiction. Because Mother did not request a legal 

guardianship for Journee, she forfeited the issue. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Investigation and Dependency Petition

On June 6, 2022 the Department received a referral after 

Mother went to urgent care and disclosed she had active thoughts 

about stabbing herself, hitting pedestrians and other vehicles 

with her car, and drowning Journee and Journee’s half sister, 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

then six-year-old Nyla E.2 Mother was placed on a psychiatric 

hold and admitted to a mental health facility, then became 

verbally and physically aggressive toward staff. Mother left the 

facility after repeatedly kicking and ramming the locked double 

doors, which eventually opened. 

On June 10, 2022 the Department filed a petition under 

section 300, former subdivision (b)(1), alleging Mother “ha[d] a 

history of mental and emotional problems including suicidal and 

homicidal ideation, auditory hallucinations, delusional thinking, 

and aggressive behaviors” that rendered her incapable of 

providing regular care of Journee and Nyla. The children were 

removed from Mother and placed with their maternal greatgrandmother, Jennice W. 

B. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings 

At the August 3, 2022 jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile 

court sustained the amended allegations under section 300, 

former subdivision (b)(1), that Mother’s mental and emotional 

problems rendered her incapable of providing regular care for 

Journee. At the Department’s request, the court continued the 

disposition hearing to September 20 for compliance with the 

Indian and Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; IWCA) 

and related California law. 

2 Mother’s appeal only involves Journee. The juvenile court 

found that Jeremy R. was Journee’s alleged father and the 

Department had made due diligent efforts to contact him, but his 

whereabouts were unknown. Jeremy is not a party to this 

appeal.
4

At the September 20, 2022 disposition hearing, the juvenile 

court declared Journee a dependent of the court and removed her 

from Mother’s physical custody. The court ordered Mother to 

submit to weekly random and on-demand drug and alcohol 

testing, a psychological assessment, and a psychiatric evaluation. 

The court also ordered Mother to participate in mental health 

counseling and individual counseling and to take all prescribed 

psychotropic medication. The court granted Mother monitored 

visits with Journee for a minimum of two times per week for two 

hours each visit. 

On September 28, 2022 Mother timely appealed from the 

disposition order. Mother contended the Department and the 

juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice 

requirements of ICWA and related California law because the 

Department failed to interview the maternal grandmother and 

two maternal great-aunts. We dismissed the appeal as moot 

because the Department interviewed the maternal relatives 

while the appeal was pending. (In re Journee E. (Sept. 25, 2023, 

B323959) [nonpub. opn.].)

C. The Six-month Status Review Report

According to the March 10, 2023 six-month status review 

report, Journee was doing well and thriving in Jennice’s home. 

Journee appeared advanced for her age and had many friends in 

preschool. She had weekly video visits with her half sister Nyla, 

who resided in Texas. Jennice reported that Journee missed 

Nyla very much. 

Mother visited Journee daily at Jennice’s home for two 

hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon. The visits 

were monitored by Jennice. Mother helped get Journee dressed
5

and bathed her. Mother also helped Journee with her homework. 

Journee stated she loved Mother and liked seeing her. The social 

worker observed that Mother “love[d] Journee very much” and

“appear[ed] to have a close relationship with Journee.” At a 

November 30, 2022 child family team meeting, Mother stated her

goal was to close the dependency case and have her children live 

with her. 

According to the status review report, Mother was not in 

compliance with her case plan. Mother denied having a history of 

mental health issues, and she stated the results of her 

psychological evaluation were “not true.” The psychologist 

reported that Mother struggled with “‘mental [b]reakdowns,’”

lacked insight, and was defensive. But the psychologist opined 

that Mother likely could manage her mental health problems 

with proper treatment. However, Mother refused to participate 

in individual counseling or take any prescribed psychotropic 

medication. Further, Mother did not provide proof she complied 

with the court order to participate in a psychiatric evaluation. 

Mother missed all weekly drug tests from September 23, 2022 to 

February 2, 2023. Mother denied any drug use, and she refused 

to submit to drug testing by the Department. The social worker, 

Jennice, and extended family members tried to help Mother to 

obtain services, but Mother was defensive and refused assistance. 

In December 2022 Jennice expressed an interest in 

becoming Journee’s legal guardian. But Jennice later informed 

the social worker that her sister, maternal great-aunt Brenda T., 

wanted to adopt Journee. On March 7, 2023 the social worker 

spoke with Brenda, who confirmed her interest in adopting

Journee. Brenda lived in Texas near Nyla. Brenda indicated 

Journee would visit Nyla often if Brenda adopted Journee. 
6

Brenda added that Jennice frequently visited her in Texas

because they were “a very close family.” The social worker 

requested that the juvenile court issue an Interstate Compact on 

the Placement of Children (ICPC) order to assess Brenda for 

possible adoptive placement in the event reunification with 

Mother failed.

3

D. The Six-month Review Hearing 

At the March 20, 2023 six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, 

subd. (e)), Mother’s attorney reported that Mother did not think 

she had any current problems that needed to be addressed. 

Mother’s attorney stated, “[B]ased on my conversation with her, 

she is obviously asking that the order be a home of mother order 

today, that both kids go home to her, and that the case close.”

Minor’s counsel argued Mother’s denial “raise[d] serious concern”

given Mother’s prior involuntary hospitalization for suicidal 

ideation, her prior aggressive behavior, and her failure to address 

her mental health issues. Minor’s counsel agreed with the 

Department’s request that the court continue Mother’s family 

reunification services and issue an ICPC order to assess Brenda

for possible adoption of Journee. Mother requested the court 

terminate jurisdiction because there was no evidence of child 

abuse, and “prolonging this [case] on the basis of mental health 

3 “The ICPC is a compact among California and other states, 

the purpose of which is ‘“to facilitate the cooperation between 

states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children.”’” 

(In re Suhey G. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 732, 742; accord, In re 

Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 66.)
7

when that has nothing at all to do with abuse” was not within the 

court’s jurisdiction.

After hearing from Mother and the attorneys, the court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that returning Journee to 

Mother’s physical custody would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the child. The court stated, “Mother has been 

wholly non-compliant in the case plan. She denies that there is 

even a basis for jurisdiction.” But the court continued Mother’s 

family reunifications services, finding “that should Mother 

receive the mental health treatment she needs, [Journee] may be 

returned to her by the permanency hearing.” The court issued an

ICPC order to assess Brenda and set a 12-month review hearing 

(§ 366.21, subd. (f)) for September 18, 2023.

Mother timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

A. The ICPC Order Was Appropriate

Mother argues legal guardianship was in Journee’s best 

interest instead of an ICPC order with a plan of adoption by 

Brenda, who lives in Texas. But at the six-month review hearing, 

the juvenile court ordered only an ICPC evaluation of Brenda, not 

placement or adoption. (See In re A.J. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 

525, 541 [“The ICPC governs the interstate placement of 

children, and generally requires that no child may be sent to 

another state for placement ‘in foster care or as a preliminary to a 

possible adoption’ unless the sending agency has first complied 

with the law’s requirements.”]; In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 

51, 66 [“‘The ICPC governs conditions for out-of-state “placement 

in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption.”’”].) The 
8

court could not order adoption or placement of Journee with 

Brenda in Texas until the ICPC evaluation was completed. (In re 

Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 462 [“ICPC procedures 

must be completed before a member state can order a child sent 

into another state for placement. . . . If a state sends a child into 

a home for placement prior to completion of ICPC procedures, the 

‘sending’ is equivalent to a conditional or contingent placement 

barred by the ICPC.”]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670,

682 [“The ICPC prohibits sending a minor into the receiving state 

‘until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state 

shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the 

proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the 

interests of the child.’”].)

B. Legal Guardianship Under Section 360, Subdivision (a)(1)

At the disposition hearing, “[a]fter receiving and 

considering evidence on the appropriate disposition, the juvenile 

court may (1) order a legal guardian be appointed for the child 

(§ 360, subd. (a)); (2) order informal services without adjudicating 

the child a dependent (id., subd. (b)); or (3) adjudge the child a 

dependent of the juvenile court (id., subd. (d)).” (In re L.A. (2009) 

180 Cal.App.4th 413, 425; accord, In re G.W. (2009) 

173 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1436.) “‘Before the juvenile court may 

appoint a legal guardian pursuant to subdivision (a) of 

section 360, each of the following must occur: (1) the court must 

find that the child is a person described by section 300; (2) the 

parent must advise the court that he or she is not interested in 

family maintenance or family reunification services; (3) the court 

must determine that a legal guardianship is in the best interests 

of the child; (4) the parent and the child must agree to the 
9

appointment; (5) the court must advise the parent and child that 

reunification services will not be provided; and (6) the court must 

order an assessment of the person whom the court anticipates 

appointing as the legal guardian.’”

4 (In re L.A., at p. 425; accord, 

In re G.W., at p. 1437; see In re Summer H. (2006) 

139 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1331 [“[S]ection 360 is triggered by the 

custodial parent’s express approval of both a guardianship for the 

child and the prospective guardian and the juvenile court’s 

finding, based on all the evidence, including a statutorily 

prescribed review of the proposed guardian’s criminal history 

(§ 360, subd. (a)(4)), that the proposed guardianship is in the 

child’s best interests.”].)

The juvenile court has “the discretion to order legal 

guardianship under section 360, subdivision (a).” (In re L.A., 

supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 419; see In re Summer H., supra, 

4 Section 360, subdivision (a)(1), provides in part, 

“Notwithstanding any other law, if the court finds that the child 

is a person described by Section 300 and the parent has advised 

the court that the parent is not interested in family maintenance 

or family reunification services and has executed a written 

waiver of any of those services, the court may, in addition to or in 

lieu of adjudicating the child a dependent child of the court, order 

a legal guardianship, appoint a legal guardian, and issue letters 

of guardianship, if the court determines that a guardianship is in 

the best interest of the child, provided the parent and the child 

agree to the guardianship, unless the child’s age or physical, 

emotional, or mental condition prevents the child’s meaningful 

response. The court shall advise the parent and the child that 

reunification services will not be provided as a result of the 

establishment of a guardianship. The proceeding for the 

appointment of a guardian shall be in the juvenile court.”
10

139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1321.) Custody determinations are 

“committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court,” and 

such rulings “should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse 

of discretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 

7 Cal.4th 295, 318; see In re J.M. (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 707, 717-

718 [juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in appointing 

maternal grandmother as legal guardian under section 366.26, 

subdivision (c)(4)(A)].)

C. The Six-month Review Hearing Under Section 366.21, 

Subdivision (e)

“‘Family preservation, with the attendant reunification 

plan and reunification services, is the first priority when child 

dependency proceedings are commenced. [Citation.] 

Reunification services implement “the law’s strong preference for 

maintaining the family relationships if at all possible.”

[Citation.]’ [Citation.] Reunification services are typically 

understood as a benefit provided to parents, because services 

enable them to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain 

custody of their dependent children.” (In re Nolan W. (2009) 

45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228; accord, Michael G. v. Superior Court

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 [“When a child has been removed from 

a parent’s custody, the court ordinarily must order child welfare 

services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family.”].)

“[A]t the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court must 

decide whether return of a dependent child to the parent would 

be detrimental to the child. Section 366.21, subdivision (e) 

requires the court, in making this decision, to ‘consider the efforts 

or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent . . . and the 

extent to which he or she availed himself or herself [of] services 
11

provided,’ and it specifies that ‘failure of the parent or legal 

guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress

in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie 

evidence that return would be detrimental.’” (In re Nolan W., 

supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1235; accord, Bridget A. v. Superior Court 

(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 305 [“There is a statutory 

presumption the child will be returned to parental custody unless 

the court finds the child’s return would create ‘a substantial risk 

of detriment to the physical or emotional well-being’ of the 

child.”].) 

D. Mother’s Failure To Request Legal Guardianship Forfeited

the Issue

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

failing to appoint Jennice as the legal guardian for Journee at the 

six-month review hearing. But Mother did not file a section 388 

petition to request a change in the disposition order and 

appointment of a legal guardianship. (In re Christopher L. (2022) 

12 Cal.5th 1063, 1079-1080 [“Section 388 authorizes a parent ‘or 

other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent 

child of the juvenile court’ to petition the juvenile court ‘to 

change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or 

to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.’”]; In re Marilyn H. 

(1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308-309 [“[T]hroughout the reunification 

period and thereafter, the parent has the continuing right to 

petition the court for a modification of any of its orders based 

upon changed circumstances or new evidence pursuant to 

section 388.”].) Nor did Mother request legal guardianship at the 

disposition hearing or six-month review hearing. Further, 

Mother did not inform the court that she was “not interested in 
12

family maintenance or family reunification services,” and she did 

not execute “a written waiver of any of those services” as 

mandated by section 360, subdivision (a)(1), before the court can 

appoint a legal guardian. Instead, at the six-month review 

hearing, Mother sought termination of jurisdiction or return of 

Journee to Mother’s physical custody. 

Because Mother did not request the court appoint Jennice 

as Journee’s legal guardian, she forfeited her contention that the 

juvenile court abused its discretion in not appointing Jennice as 

Journee’s legal guardian at the six-month review hearing. “[A] 

reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a 

ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the 

trial court.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; accord, In re 

R.Q. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 462, 470 [presumed father forfeited 

issue where he “argued broadly that he wanted to reunify with 

both minors and have them placed with him,” but “he did not 

argue that placement of minor with C.H. would interfere with his 

visitation or minor’s relationship with her sister”]; In re Maria Q.

(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577, 590 [“‘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.’”].)5 Moreover, we cannot 

5 Mother also contends the Department and the juvenile 

court failed to comply with ICWA and related California law. 

She challenges the Department’s failure to interview the 

maternal grandmother and maternal great-aunts and the

adequacy of the IWCA notice, raising the same arguments she 

asserted in her first appeal, In re Journee E., supra, B323959. As 

discussed, we found the ICWA notice was adequate, and we

dismissed Mother’s appeal of the ICWA inquiry as moot because 
13

evaluate whether the court abused its discretion in not 

appointing Jennice as the legal guardian because the court was 

never presented with a request, and further, there was no 

evaluation of Jennice as a possible legal guardian. And, as 

discussed, the other requirements for appointment of a legal 

guardian were not met.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

MARTINEZ, J.

the Department interviewed the two maternal great-aunts while 

Mother’s appeal was pending. (Ibid.)