Guardianship of C.H. CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 9/14/26 Guardianship of C.H. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Guardianship of the Persons of 2d Civ. No. B350761 C.H. et al., Minors. (Super. Ct. No. 2025PRGP047268) _____________________________ (Ventura County)

B.H., Appellant, v. A.D. et al., Respondents.

The trial court appointed A.D. and D.H. guardians of B.H.’s three minor children and issued letters of guardianship to that effect. B.H. appealed. We conclude she has forfeited all of her contentions on appeal and will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2025, A.D. and D.H.—the aunt and uncle of C.H. (now age 13), R.H. (age 11), and H.H. (age 9)—filed a petition seeking to be appointed guardians of the three children. In August 2025, the trial court appointed aunt and uncle temporary guardians of the children. On September 30, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the guardianship petition. According to the minute order, appellant stated she had not received the probate investigator’s report. A copy was provided to appellant and the court recessed for nearly three hours. Over appellant’s objection, the court granted the guardianship petition. After filing a notice of appeal in November 2025, appellant filed a proposed settled statement of oral proceedings in the superior court in January 2026. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137.) That filing identified several “issues to be raised on appeal . . . ,” including that “the court violated her due process rights by providing the confidential probate investigator’s report for the first time at the start of the hearing, allowing only a brief recess to skim it . . . .” The proposed settled statement also offered a description of the September 30 hearing. In February 2026, the trial court signed an order stating: “The court certifies that the attached settled statement is an accurate summary of the hearing that is relevant to the appeal. The court settles the statement and certifies it is ready to be sent to the court of appeal.” The attachment stated in substance: “On 9/30/25 at 9:11 AM the matter was called and Appellant indicated that she had not received a copy of the Confidential Investigator’s Report. Appellant did not ask for a continuance. The court provided 2 Appellant with a copy of the report and trailed the matter giving Appellant almost three hours to read it. At 12:00 PM the court recalled the matter. When the matter was recalled, Appellant again did not ask for a continuance for any reason. Appellant was not in favor of the petition and made a general objection, but did not articulate any reasons for her objection. Appellant made not [sic] requests of the court.” Appellant filed an opening brief contending: (1) the order must be reversed because the confidential investigator’s report was not disclosed at least three court days before the hearing as required by Probate Code section 1513; (2) the procedure violated due process because appellant had no meaningful opportunity to rebut the report or examine the investigator; (3) the court failed to apply the heightened parental-preference standard governing nonparent custody over a parent’s objection; (4) because the guardianship was based on abuse, neglect, substance use, and safety allegations, the court should have considered the Probate Code section 1513 child-welfare referral safeguards; (5) the court abused its discretion by entering a long-term out-of-state guardianship without a reunification framework or structured visitation; and (6) the errors were prejudicial. No respondents’ brief was filed. DISCUSSION Appellant has forfeited her arguments on appeal by failing to raise them in the trial court. “Under the doctrine of forfeiture, ‘a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been made but was not made in the trial court.’” (In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos & Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1124.) The doctrine’s purpose “‘is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention 3 of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.’” (In re A.E. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1, 5.) “‘“Even a constitutional right must be raised at the trial level to preserve the issue on appeal.”’” (Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844, 853.) According to the settled statement the court certified, appellant did not request a continuance for any reason. Appellant lodged a general objection to the petition and “did not articulate any reasons for her objection.” Because appellant did not raise her arguments or issues on appeal in conjunction with the September 30 petition hearing, they are forfeited. (Natkin v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals. Bd. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 997, 1011 [“‘“[W]e ignore arguments . . . not presented and litigated in the trial court.”’”]; Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1309 [“[I]ssues not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.”].) Given this forfeiture, appellant has not “‘affirmatively shown’” error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Although appellant cites her proposed settled statement, the trial court did not certify that document. Appellant has forfeited any objection to the settled statement the court did certify. The record does not indicate appellant sought writ relief, and appellant did not challenge the court’s actions regarding the settled statement in her opening brief. (See Murphy v. Stelling (1903) 138 Cal. 641, 642-643, italics omitted [“[M]andamus is the proper and exclusive remedy when a trial judge refuses to settle a statement which it is his duty to settle . . . .”]; People v. Morales (2020) 10 Cal.5th 76, 98 [argument “doubly forfeited” by failure to object in trial court and raise issue in opening appellate brief].)

4 Appellant did not address forfeiture in her opening brief. While we have discretion to consider forfeited arguments that raise pure questions of law, we are under no “mandatory duty” to do so. (Wittenberg v. Bornstein (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 556, 567.) Because these proceedings involve the well-being of children, concerns like stability “are of paramount importance.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.) Moreover, this case does not present “‘an important legal issue.’” (In re Marriage of Elali & Marchoud (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 668, 682.) On this record, we decline to excuse appellant’s forfeiture. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. No costs on appeal are awarded. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.

5 Gilbert A. Romero, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura _________________________________ B.H., in pro per, for Appellant. No appearance for Respondents.