gno.law

In re R.S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082419 · 2023-10-31 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JJP000451
Trial judge
Marco D. Nunez
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
dependency
Panel
Buchanan (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:26Z · confidence high

The trial court authorized the disclosure of confidential juvenile court records to a criminal prosecutor under a protective order that A.S.'s counsel explicitly accepted without objection to specific terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, ruling that A.S. forfeited and waived her challenges to the protective order's specific terms by failing to raise them in the juvenile court and acquiescing in the order.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Protective order authorizing disclosure of confidential juvenile court records to prosecutor
“We conclude that A.S. has forfeited and waived her challenges to the specific terms of the protective order by failing to raise them in the juvenile court and acquiescing in the protective order.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The appellate court correctly applied the forfeiture and waiver doctrines. A.S. failed to object to the specific terms of the protective order in the trial court, and her counsel affirmatively stated he was 'happy with the protective order.' Under California law, general objections are insufficient to preserve specific non-jurisdictional issues, and acquiescence in a proposed order constitutes waiver of objections to its terms. The court's reliance on *In re D.P.* and *Sperber v. Robinson* is appropriate for this procedural posture.

Authorities

  • relied: In re D.P. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1282 — A litigant forfeits an appellate argument by failing to raise it before the trial court in dependency proceedings.
  • relied: In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882 — Supports the forfeiture rule regarding failure to raise issues in the trial court.
  • relied: People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211 — The forfeiture rule applies to non-jurisdictional objections to a protective order.
  • relied: In re E.A. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 787 — General objections are insufficient to preserve issues for review; the objection must state the ground or grounds upon which the objection is based.
  • relied: Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736 — Agreement with a proposed order constitutes a waiver of the issue because the party acquiesced in and contributed to any such error.
  • relied: Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 834 — Alleged error is waived by appellants' acquiescence in the trial court.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is a memorandum opinion that correctly applies well-established forfeiture and waiver principles to the procedural history. It accurately identifies that A.S.'s general objections did not preserve specific challenges to the protective order's terms, and that her counsel's affirmative acceptance of the order constituted waiver. The reasoning is concise and supported by controlling authority.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The juvenile court granted a prosecutor's Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 petition for confidential dependency records in a related felony child abuse case and signed a protective order governing their use, to which A.S.'s counsel said he was "happy" and never objected on specific terms. The Court of Appeal affirmed by memorandum opinion, holding that A.S. forfeited and waived her first-time-on-appeal challenges to the protective order's terms (scope of use, expert access, and lack of disposal provisions) by failing to raise them below and by affirmatively acquiescing in the order.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Issuance of the protective order governing disclosure of confidential juvenile records to the prosecutor, including its terms permitting use for preparation and presentation of the criminal case, expert access, and no disposal/return provisions
“We conclude that A.S. has forfeited and waived her challenges to the specific terms of the protective order by failing to raise them in the juvenile court and acquiescing in the protective order.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
The court did not reach the merits of the overbreadth, expert-access, or disposal objections; it applied the forfeiture rule (In re D.P., In re Kevin S.) and the rule that general objections do not preserve specific grounds (In re E.A.), and found waiver from counsel's affirmative statement that he was happy with the order (Sperber v. Robinson). The record quoted, including the two-month window after the proposed order was served and counsel's express approval, supports both forfeiture and waiver, and A.S. abandoned her only preserved objection (to disclosure itself) on appeal. The court did not discuss its discretion to excuse forfeiture under In re S.B., but counsel's affirmative acquiescence makes that omission unlikely to change the result.

Authorities

  • relied: In re D.P. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1282 — In dependency proceedings a litigant forfeits an appellate argument by failing to raise it before the trial court.
  • relied: In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882 — Forfeiture rule applies in dependency appeals to arguments not raised in the juvenile court.
  • relied: People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211 — Non-jurisdictional objections to a protective order are subject to the forfeiture rule.
  • relied: In re E.A. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 787 — General objections are insufficient to preserve issues for review; the objection must state its specific grounds.
  • relied: Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736 — A party's agreement to or acquiescence in a trial court action waives any claim of error on appeal.
  • relied: Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 834 — Alleged error is waived by appellants' acquiescence in the trial court.
  • missed: In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 — Although the forfeiture rule applies in dependency cases, the appellate court has discretion to excuse forfeiture, to be exercised rarely and with special care where the issue affects a child's interests.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied settled forfeiture and acquiescence principles to a record showing counsel expressly approved the protective order and never objected to its specific terms, and the cited authorities support each step. It did not acknowledge the appellate court's discretion to excuse forfeiture recognized in In re S.B., though counsel's affirmative waiver makes that omission immaterial to the outcome.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 10/31/23 In re R.S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re R.S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

IMPERIAL COUNTY HEALTH & D082419 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JJP000451)

v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco D. Nunez, Judge. Affirmed.

William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Melissa A. Mandel and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A.S. appeals from a protective order issued as part of an order authorizing disclosure of confidential juvenile court records to the prosecutor in a related criminal prosecution against A.S. for felony child abuse. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).) We conclude that A.S. has forfeited and waived her challenges to the specific terms of the protective order by failing to raise them in the juvenile court and acquiescing in the protective order. After A.S. lost custody of her son and the juvenile court terminated her parental rights in a dependency proceeding, the deputy attorney general who was prosecuting her in a related criminal case for felony child abuse filed a petition for access to the juvenile case records under Welfare & Institutions Code section 827 and rules 5.552 and 5.553 of the California Rules of Court. The prosecutor explained in an attachment to the petition that she was seeking these records for the following purposes: (1) “to ensure the People have accurate and complete information regarding . . . the injuries that the child suffered . . . [and] the . . . investigation into the mistreatment and abuse of the child . . . .”; (2) “to ensure consistency in the criminal proceeding and to determine whether either [A.S.] or [her husband] made any incriminating statements”; and (3) to obtain “any testimony presented in dependency court that could aid in the prosecution of this case.” A.S. did not file any written objection to the prosecutor’s petition. Over the next four months, the juvenile court held multiple hearings on the matter and granted continuances to permit the Imperial County Department of Social Services (Department) to compile the records and make appropriate redactions.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it is determined by controlling authority which does not require any reexamination or restatement. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(2).) 2 At a hearing on April 26, 2023, the juvenile court directed the Department to submit a proposed order. County counsel agreed to submit a proposed order and serve it on the parties. On April 28, 2023, the Department submitted a proposed protective order for the confidential documents. At a hearing four weeks later, counsel for A.S. stated: “I’ve seen the protective order. I’m happy with the protective order.” At the final hearing on June 28, 2023, county counsel made minor changes to the proposed protective order by interlineation. Counsel for A.S. again did not object to the protective order or any of its specific terms. After balancing the interests of the prosecutor, the child, and the parties to the dependency proceeding, the juvenile court ordered the release of the requested records and transcripts to the prosecutor under the terms set forth in the protective order. At the final hearing of June 28, 2023, the court informed the parties that it intended to sign the protective order. Counsel for A.S. again did not raise any issues with the specific provisions of the protective order and did not request any revisions to it. The court signed and filed the protective order the same day. Throughout the proceedings on the prosecutor’s petition, counsel for A.S. objected orally that disclosure of the confidential juvenile court records would violate her constitutional rights and have a chilling effect. Counsel for A.S. “object[ed] to the whole proceeding,” but acknowledged, “there’s nothing I can do about it.” He asserted that allowing the prosecutor to use A.S.’s statements in the dependency case against her in a criminal proceeding “irritates me” and “seems unfair, seems unconstitutional.” He proclaimed that he did “not like” the statute authorizing disclosure and that it “just goes against my fairness bones because everything is supposed to be confidential until it’s not . . . .” Although counsel for A.S. voiced disapproval of the 3 disclosure of these records to the prosecutor, he never objected to any of the specific terms and conditions of the proposed protective order. On appeal, A.S. no longer challenges the disclosure of the juvenile court records and transcripts to the prosecutor. For the first time on appeal, however, A.S. challenges the specific terms of the protective order on the following grounds: (1) the protective order is overbroad because it authorizes the prosecutor to use the information for preparation and presentation of the criminal case, rather than just for impeachment; (2) the protective order authorizes any expert retained by the prosecutor to review the confidential information, even though the prosecutor did not request such authorization; and (3) the protective order has no directions for disposing of, returning, or restricting access to the confidential information after it is no longer needed for the criminal prosecution. A.S. has forfeited these contentions by failing to raise them in the juvenile court. “In dependency proceedings, as elsewhere, a litigant forfeits an appellate argument by failing to raise it before the trial court.” (In re D.P. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1282, 1292; see also In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885–886.) The forfeiture rule applies to non-jurisdictional objections to a protective order. (See, e.g., People v. Race (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 211, 219, fn. 4.) A.S.’s general objections to the disclosure of the records were insufficient to preserve the specific, non-jurisdictional objections she now makes to the terms of the protective order. (See In re E.A. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 787, 790 [“General objections are insufficient to preserve issues for review. . . . The objection must state the ground or grounds upon which the objection is based.”].) A.S. had ample opportunity to object to the specific terms of the protective order in the two months after it was first proposed by the 4 Department and before it was signed by the court. Instead of objecting, her counsel affirmatively told the juvenile court: “I’m happy with the protective order.” “Such agreement constitutes a waiver of the issue, since appellant and counsel acquiesced in and contributed to any such error.” (Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 736, 742–743; see also Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 834, 856–857 [alleged error “waived by appellants’ acquiescence” in trial court].) Thus, A.S. has both forfeited and waived the only issues she raises on appeal. DISPOSITION The order of June 28, 2023 is affirmed.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus