In re L.M.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered whether the juvenile court could order visitation between a dependent minor and a nondependent sibling over the objection of the sibling’s parent. The court held that Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 16002 are not facially unconstitutional because they authorize, but do not require, visitation orders and must be applied consistently with the parent’s constitutional rights. The court declined to decide the as-applied constitutional challenge, rejected the abuse-of-discretion claim, and affirmed the visitation order.

Holdings

1. Sections 388 and 16002 are not facially unconstitutional because they authorize, but do not require, a juvenile court to order visitation between a dependent child and a nondependent sibling, and they do not prevent the court from giving special weight to a presumed-fit parent's views.
2. When deciding whether to order visitation between a dependent child and a nondependent sibling, the juvenile court must consider and respect the decision of a parent who is presumed fit, giving that decision special weight even if the court ultimately overrules the objection.
3. The court declined to decide whether the visitation order was unconstitutional as applied because the record did not disclose what weight the juvenile court gave to Mother's concerns or how it reached its decision.
4. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering supervised sibling visitation.
5. Mother forfeited her challenge to the form of the visitation request by failing to raise it below, and the court declined to decide the proper burden or standard of proof because the record did not show what standard the juvenile court applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 16002 are facially unconstitutional because they fail expressly to protect a presumed-fit parent's right to direct the upbringing of a nondependent child.
2. Whether the juvenile court's visitation order was unconstitutional as applied because the court allegedly failed to give special weight to Mother's decision regarding visitation with Z.S.
3. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering sibling visitation without sufficient evidence that visitation was consistent with Z.S.'s safety and well-being.
4. Whether Mother's challenges to the form of the visitation request and the allocation and standard of proof were preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed