In re M.J. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Mother does not contest the juvenile court’s order granting full legal and physical custody to father, which was the primary focus of the trial. She appeals the visitation orders. The parties’ counsel did not specifically address those orders during their closing arguments, and neither mother nor her attorney objected to the language of the orders. Even if a general objection could be inferred from the record, there was no assertion that the court unlawfully delegated the its visitation authority to father.

3 A party generally forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to object in the trial court. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221- 222.) Principles of forfeiture apply in dependency litigation and preclude a party from “standing by silently” until the conclusion of the proceedings. (Id. at p. 222.) “[An] appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.) That discretion must be exercised…