Skip to content
Name: In re Jasmine P.
Case #: B146014
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/13/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/10/01

The juvenile court ordered the minor, Jasmine, placed in a legal guardianship with her grandmother as a permanent plan. The order made no provision for visitation between Jasmine and her mother, and mother did not seek a visitation order at the trial level. On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court had a mandatory duty to make a visitation order or find that visitation would be detrimental, and therefore the issue was not waived on appeal. The appellate court here affirmed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.36, subdivision (c)(4), did not mandate that the court make a visitation order or otherwise find detriment. Visitation is only specifically required in the situation where the minor is placed with a relative caretaker who is not willing to become a legal guardian. Therefore, since the juvenile court was not mandated to make the order, it did not err by failing to do so absent a request from mother.