In re B.G. CA4/2

I. INTRODUCTION

B.E. (Father) appeals from a dispositional order removing B.G. from his custody

and denying reunification services pursuant to a “bypass” provision set forth in Welfare

and Institutions Code1 section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(16) and (c)(2), which generally

provides that a juvenile court “shall not order reunification for a parent” if the parent has

previously been required by a court to be registered on a sex offender registry unless the

court also finds by clear and convincing evidence that reunification is in the best interest

of the child. (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(16), (c)(2).) On appeal, Father does not dispute the

juvenile court’s finding that he falls within the provision of section 361.5, subdivision

(b)(16), but argues that the juvenile court erred by failing to properly consider whether

reunification would be in the best interests of B.G. We conclude this argument has been

forfeited for failure to raise the issue in the juvenile court proceedings and affirm the

order on this basis.

II. BACKGROUND

Father and A.G.2 are the parents of B.G. In 2024, the Riverside County

Department of Public Social Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to…