Skip to content
Name: In re S.B.
Case #: B154825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 11/12/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 1/22/03: S112260
Summary

A permanent plan of guardianship was established for the minor due to mother’s psychiatric disorder. Mother appealed from an order entered at a 366.26 hearing which ordered visits between mother and her daughter “as deemed by the legal guardian to be in her [the minor’s] best interest.” There had been no objection to the visitation order. The appellate court here reached the visitation issue despite the lack of objection, and reversed. Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(4) requires a juvenile court to make a visitation order when the permanent plan is legal guardianship, or make a finding that visitation would be detrimental to the child. Here, the court’s order was not proper because it delegated to the legal guardians its duty to determine visitation. Legal guardians can play a role in deciding the time, place, and manner of visitation, but discretion to make those determinations cannot be left entirely to the guardians. J. Turner dissented, finding the issue waived. Second, even if it was not waived, it was in the child’s best interest to allow the guardian to control the visitation schedule.