Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Michael W.

Michael W. (Father) appeals from an order of the juvenile court on his pehtion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 1 giving his minor son, Korbin Z. (Korbin), sole discretion whether Father will have visits with him. Korbin (the sole respondent on appeal) 2 contends that Father had no right to visitation under the circumstances of this case, and that therefore it was not improper to delegate to Korbin the decision whether he will visit with Father.

As we explain below, we conclude that where, as here, the court has not ordered reunification services because, under section 361.5, subdivisions *514 (b)(1) and (d), the parent’s whereabouts were unknown for more than six months after the child’s out-of-home placement, the parent has no right to visitation. Nonetheless, the court may order visitation in the exercise of its discretion under section 362, subdivision (a), on a finding that such visitation will serve and protect the child’s best interests. But, as is the rule when visitation is ordered as part of a reunification plan, the court cannot give the child sole discretion to determine whether such visitation will occur. Rather, once the court determines that…