DISCUSSION

Father’s sole contention on appeal, which appears completely unsupported by the record provided to us, is that the juvenile court erred by failing to designate him as L.P.’s presumed father. (Fam. Code, § 7611.)1 He claims that he received L.P. into his home and openly held her out as his own, which meets the requirements of presumed father designation pursuant to section 7611, subdivision (d).2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 He adds an undeveloped claim that he is entitled to designation as a “Kelsey S. presumed father” (see Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816), and briefly argues

3 The record does not reflect that father ever asked the juvenile court, formally or informally, to be so designated. Nor at any point did he object to his designation as L.P.’s biological father (rather than her presumed father) in the juvenile court, despite multiple hearings at which he was openly classified as such. “[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. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.] [¶] Dependency matters are not exempt from this rule. [Citations.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) Here, as we have explained, at the dispositional hearing from which father appeals, he not only failed to object to the juvenile court’s statement about providing him services “as biological father,” he immediately acquiesced to the designation when he realized the court was inclined to provide him with services. Father’s failure to object to the court’s alleged error forfeits his claim of error on appeal. (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293.) Further, father never sought a determination of presumed fatherhood in the juvenile court. In claiming entitlement to presumed father status under section 7611, father bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts supporting his entitlement. (In re J.O. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 139, 147.) Father never sought to establish the entitlement in the juvenile court that he now claims on appeal.3

that due process requires he be classified as a presumed father. We decline to consider these claims for the same reasons we explain immediately post. 3 Indeed, appellate counsel does not dispute that father’s claim is forfeited by his failure to object or seek designation below, but instead offers that we may “safely infer” father’s status as presumed from scattered observations in various reports and posits that we should do so (for the first time) on appeal in the interests of judicial economy, now that “the issues have been fully briefed.” We reject this attempt to short circuit proper process, and note that asking us to consider a forfeited claim on an undeveloped and

4 If father wishes to be designated as L.P.’s presumed father, he must first establish the facts supporting his claim of entitlement in the juvenile court. Our disposition of this appeal does not prevent him from attempting to do so in the future, should he so choose.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

MAURO , J.

insufficient record is a waste of precious time in these dependency proceedings, which are time-sensitive by their very nature.

5