In re R.F. CA2/4

INTRODUCTION

R.F., Sr. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order awarding him monitored visitation with his son, R.F., Jr. (child).1 Father argues that by allowing child’s mother, M.S. (mother), to choose the monitor, the trial court gave mother a practical veto over his visitation. Father forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in the trial court. Therefore, we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, so we do not restate those details in full here. Father raises only one issue on appeal; we discuss only the points relevant to that issue.

DISCUSSION

The juvenile court’s “exit order” terminating this case provides that mother is to have sole legal and physical custody of child, and father is to have monitored visits twice a week for two hours per visit. The order also provides that the parties are to agree upon a monitor, but that mother will select a monitor if the parties cannot agree, and if mother selects a professional monitor then father must pay the costs. Father argues that this order improperly delegates the court’s authority over visitation to mother. Mother could refuse to agree on a monitor, at which point she…