In re Rhonda J.

1
Filed 6/4/03 In re Rhonda J. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----
In re RHONDA J., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NICOLE R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
C042637
(Super. Ct. No.
SDP20010012)
Nicole R. (appellant), the mother of Rhonda J. (the minor),
appeals from the juvenile court’s order establishing guardianship
of the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further section
references are to this code.) She contends the court committed
reversible error in delegating to the minor’s guardians the power
to determine whether visitation between appellant and the minor

-- 1 of 5 --

2
will occur. We conclude that appellant has failed to preserve
the issue for appeal. Accordingly, we shall affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2001, the eleven-year-old minor was removed from
parental custody and placed in foster care after her parents were
arrested and incarcerated for leading Nevada and California law
enforcement on a high-speed chase through the Sierra Nevada while
fleeing in a stolen vehicle from an assault and burglary. The
minor was in the car with her parents during the police pursuit.
The parents had a significant history of criminal activity moving
from state to state and, when arrested, they were in possession of
numerous false identification papers.
On July 30, 2001, the El Dorado County Department of Social
Services filed a section 300 petition, alleging the minor came
within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g),
due to her parents’ negligence and criminal activity. The court
sustained the allegations, adjudged the minor a dependent of the
court, and ordered her detained in foster care. Visitation was
provided for both parents.
At a contested 12-month review hearing on August 14, 2002,
the court found that the parents had failed to complete the terms
of the reunification plan. The court terminated reunification
services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
At the section 366.26 hearing on November 13, 2002, the court
found that, although the minor was adoptable, she was over the age
of twelve and objected to adoption, wishing instead for a legal
guardianship. Consequently, the court found that terminating

-- 2 of 5 --

3
parental rights would be detrimental to the minor. (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1)(B).)
Over the parents’ objections, the court ordered guardianship
as the permanent plan for the minor, appointed the legal guardians,
and terminated dependency. As to visitation, the court stated:
“Further visitation between the child and the parents would not
be detrimental to the physical or well-being of the child. I want
to reiterate once again I have heard today that the parents have
discussed this matter with the child. I have heard from the child
that that is distressing to her. She wants to visit with her
parents, not listen to what’s going on in this case or what’s
going to happen in the future. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . Visitation
between the child and her parents may be continued at the
discretion of the legal guardians. And I’m going to advise the
parents again that it’s at the discretion of the legal guardian
and that any conduct between the parents and the child with regard
to talking about this case will end any further visitation and
telephone contact.”
The written order signed by the court reads: “Visitation
between the child[] and the parents . . . continue [] subject
to the following conditions[:] At the discretion of the legal
guardians.”
At no time did appellant object in the juvenile court to
the terms of the visitation order or make a request for a more
specific order.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
DISCUSSION
When a guardianship is established, the juvenile court must
define the rights of the parties to visitation and shall make
an order for visitation, unless it would be detrimental to the
physical or emotional well-being of the child. (§ 366.26, subd.
(c)(4).)
Appellant contends the court’s visitation order improperly
delegates authority to the guardians to determine the issue of
visitation. The contention is waived because appellant did not
raise the issue in the juvenile court. (In re Richard K. (1994)
25 Cal.App.4th 580, 590 [“As a general rule, a party is precluded
from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court”];
cf. In re Daniel C. H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 838.)
We note, however, that although guardianship has been
established and the dependency terminated, the juvenile court
retains jurisdiction over the minor. (§§ 366.3, subd. (a), 366.4.)
Thus, the visitation order contemplates that the court retains the
ability to oversee the issue of visitation should it be unjustly
denied or should the guardians become convinced further visitation
is detrimental to the minor.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
SCOTLAND , P.J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
ROBIE , J.

-- 5 of 5 --