In re L.M. CA2/8

BACKGROUND

We recite only those facts relevant to the narrow issue on appeal. On June 25, 2021, the juvenile court held a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing.1 During the hearing, Father requested at least one unmonitored visit with the Children per week. The court denied that request, responding that Father’s visits would be “worked out with the legal guardian. So I’m going to order just mutually agreed upon visits and . . . the monitor.” The court determined that legal guardianship was the appropriate permanent plan for the Children, granted the Children’s paternal grandmother legal guardianship, and, in its written order, ordered Father’s visits

All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 with the Children to be “mutually agreed upon with the legal guardian and monitor.” The court then terminated its dependency jurisdiction. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We review the visitation order for abuse of discretion. (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557 (S.H.).) On appeal, Father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by allowing the legal guardian to determine his…