In Re Aaron B., 46 Cal. App. 4th 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Aaron B., 46 Cal. App. 4th 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
128 citation events (105 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: D.B. v. Superior Court CA1/2 (calctapp, 2025-01-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) D.B. v. Superior Court CA1/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [“ ‘[A] party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court. . . .’ ”].) But even if not forfeited on that basis, his claim is forfeited for the separate reason that he fails to support it with cogent argument and legal authority.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Z.T. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to inadequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [failure to object to lack of preliminary assessment of prospective guardian]; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339 [failure to object to lack of bonding study].) Finally, we note that father fails to explain how he was prejudiced by the lack of analysis in the reports, since he appears to concede that the relevant i…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re M.J. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to the adequacy of an adoption assessment]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to the inadequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 1338- 1339 [failure to object to the lack of a bonding study].) 4 Finally, appellants claim the above-described issues were preserved for appeal by the juvenile court’s statement that there was insufficient information to determine the nature of the relationship between the minor and J.J., the appropriateness of developing…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kravchuk v. Taylor Morrison of California CA6
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [generally, “ ‘[a] party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court’ ”].) Moreover, even if the evidence to which Taylor objected was appropriate to interpret an ambiguity in the Agreement, the evidence was nonetheless inadmissible: The trial court concluded that the relevant language of the Agreement concerning the “Closing Date” was “objectively straightforward and clear and require[d] no extrinsic evidence.” Whether we review the trial court’s evidentiary ruling for abuse 18 of discretion or…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Z.T. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to inadequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [failure to object to lack of preliminary assessment of prospective guardian]; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1338-1339 [failure to object to lack of bonding study].) Finally, we note that father fails to explain how he was prejudiced by the lack of analysis in the reports, since he appears to concede that the relevant i…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re G.V. CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(In re Urayna L.(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 883, 885 ; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [it is a fundamental rule of appellate 15 law that a party is precluded from arguing on appeal any point not raised in the trial court].) In this case, at the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on October 11, 2023, Father submitted to jurisdiction in count B-5 that he engaged in domestic violence with Mother.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cannon Electric v. Munich Reinsurance America CA2/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [party is precluded from raising on appeal any point not raised in the trial court].) Munich has not challenged the trial court’s ruling on Munich’s equitable claims. 46 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.W. v. Superior Court CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [party precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court].) In any event, separate counsel was appointed for the children as soon as the potential conflict came to the attention of the juvenile court.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lazaro v. Yadav Enterprises CA1/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 (Aaron B.).) 16 C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re F.D. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to inadequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [failure to object to lack of preliminary assessment of prospective guardian]; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339 (Lorenzo C.) [failure to object to lack of bonding study].) In any event, the court’s denial of mother’s request for a bonding study was not an abuse of discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re C.H. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [failure to object to inadequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [failure to object to lack of preliminary assessment of prospective guardian]; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339 [failure to object to lack of bonding study]; In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1508-1509 [failure to object to timeliness of § 241.1 assessment].) In any event, there was no miscarriage of justice be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re L.C. CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [it is a fundamental rule of appellate law that a party is precluded from arguing on appeal any point not raised in the trial court]; In re M.H. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 699, 713-714 [forfeiture also applies to constitutional challenges].) “ ‘Where the interests of two parties interweave, either party has standing to litigate issues that have a[n] impact upon the related interests.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re B.G. CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Code, § 366.26 permanency planning hearing when court determined that no reasonable reunification efforts were made]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Anthony P. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 635 , 640–642 [failure to request sibling visitation as part of a permanent plan]; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823 , 1830–1831 [failure to request alternative placement]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407 , 411–412 [failure to object to adequacy of adoption assessment]; In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.M. CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [failure to “object[ ] to the sufficiency of the assessment reports” waives issue on appeal]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [forfeiting adequacy of adoption assessment by not raising issue below]; compare Valerie 29 W., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 7 [parties raised adequacy of Agency’s assessment in superior court].) However, even if we reached Mother’s objection, we would reject it.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Castellanos CA2/3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [party is precluded from arguing on appeal any point not raised in trial court]; People v. Adams (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1441, fn. 2 [issues raised for first time in reply brief generally will not be considered on appeal]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [appellate brief must support each argument if possible by citation to authority].) 11 defendant would have been reached in the absence of such error.” (People v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 796 ; People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955 (Beltran); Breverman, supra, 19 Ca…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Friend v. Salzwedel
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) On the merits, appellant was on notice that his billings were a problem.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pinnock v. Gotti CA4/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 ["'[A] party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court.'"]; Sommer v. Gabor (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1468 ["'Ordinarily the failure to preserve a point below constitutes a waiver of the point.'"]; Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dept. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 530 .) Pinnock's self-represented status does not exempt him from compliance with these well-established appellate rules.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
Cal. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) We have reviewed the various points and authorities submitted to the trial court on constitutional issues relevant to the request for preliminary injunction and there is no mention, that we could find, of an equal protection violation based on this language discrepancy between the ICO and the Ordinance.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald R. v. Jamie R.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) Nevertheless, we will review the sufficiency of the investigation and report to respond to the claim of incompetence of counsel made by Jamie.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Monique B.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) As to the allegations based on mother’s use of a belt to punish the children, there was also sufficient evidence that lesser measures would not have worked.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bookout v. Nielsen
Cal. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
(In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 117 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ]; In re Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 ]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545, 551-553 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 635 ].) Disposition The order is affirmed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. Nakia A.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
To reach this conclusion, the court principally relied on the general proposition that an appellate court will ordinarily not consider erroneous rulings where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the trial court. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 311, p. 321; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 394, p. 444; id. (2004 supp.) § 394, pp. 112-113.) In In re Crystal supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at page 412 , footnote 2, the court also noted that trial counsel “as much as conceded the substance of the case.” In In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.Ap…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neumann v. Melgar
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] [father’s failure to raise inadequacy of social worker’s report in proceeding terminating his parental rights]; Heidi T, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 876 [order terminating parental rights not vacated on grounds that the *164 trial court had failed to ascertain the children’s express desires and appoint them counsel, where mother had not raised the issues in the trial court].) 9 Hector contends the court’s omissions rendered the judgment “void,” presumably because a void judgment may be attacked at any time, without…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'FLAHERTY v. Belgum
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050-1055 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]; see also, Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 ] [“An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties”].) The arbitrator did not rule that the withdrawing partners could receive no relief because of the doctrine of unclean hands.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fair Political Practices Commission v. Californians Against Corruption
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
(See In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] [issues raised for first time on appeal are waived].) Ill Constitutionality of Fine Defendants assert the judgment in favor of the FPPC was improper because the fine was constitutionally excessive.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Inland Empire Health Plan v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) However, governmental immunity from liability is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised for the first time on appellate review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Cristian L.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
(Id. at pp. 1153-1154, citing In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; and In re Urayna L. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 883, 886 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 437 ].) Of the cases cited by the Lukas B. court, only Crystal J. actually supports the proposition that the ultimate issue of whether the child is likely to be adopted can be waived by failing to argue the point at the section 366.26 hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
(See, Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 820, 847 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 780 ]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) Finally, we briefly address the claim that appellants’ record and briefs on appeal have violated various rules of form and procedure embodied in the California Rules of Court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eben-King v. King
Cal. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
(In re Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 ]; In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545, 551-553 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 635 ]; Zito, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 283 .) Because appellant failed to raise these issues in the trial court despite ample opportunity to do so, she has waived the right to do so now.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Rungsun B.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-412 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; In re Urayna L. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 883, 886 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 437 ].) However, we will consider the issue of adoptability, if only to demonstrate that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue the issue.
cited Cited as authority (rule) San Diego County Health & Human Services v. Filiberto G.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
(In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the paternity judgment.
discussed Cited "see" In re D.M. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: accord · confidence high
To the extent mother is challenging the sufficiency of the adoptability assessment report, she failed to raise the issue in the juvenile court and has therefore forfeited her right to raise the issue on appeal. “ ‘ “An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings in connection with relief sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re G.C. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1398-1399 .) “This is the general rule, because any o…
discussed Cited "see" In re A.H. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: accord · confidence high
We agree. “ ‘ “An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings in connection with relief sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re G.C. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1398-1399 .) “This is the general rule, because any other rule would allow a party to deliberately stand by in silence and permit the proceedings to reach a conclusion in which the party could acquiesce if favorable and avoid if unfavorable. [Citations.]…
discussed Cited "see" In re E.B. CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: accord · confidence high
To the extent mother challenges the adequacy of the section 366.26 assessment report, her failure to object on that basis in the juvenile court has forfeited her claim on appeal. “ ‘ “An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings in connection with relief sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re G.C. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1398 .) “This is the general rule, because any other rule would allow a party to deli…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re D.T. CA4/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Code, § 366.21, subd. (i) waived by failure to object]; see also In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [similar waiver of challenge to mandatory adoption assessment].) The minor concedes no objection was made at the hearing but asserts the issue is not forfeited because it is an error of constitutional dimension.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Paxton D. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Removal Order Father argues that the juvenile court erred in removing Paxton from his custody. 22 A. Forfeiture Parties, including parents in dependency cases, are not permitted to raise issues for the first time on appeal that could have been raised in the trial court. “[A]ny other rule would permit a party to trifle with the courts” by “deliberately stand[ing] by” without making an objection, and “thereby permit the proceedings to reach a conclusion in which the party could acquiesce if favorable and avoid if unfavorable.” (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339 ; see …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. M.V. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 ] (Dakota S.) [failure to prepare § 366.22 assessment waived by failure to object despite that provision’s mandatory language]; In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411-413 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ] (Crystal J.) [inadequacy of mandatory adoption assessment under § 366.21, subd. (i) waived by failure to object]; see also *1509 In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] [similar waiver of challenge to mandatory adoption assessment].) Indeed, “[a]s some of these courts have noted, a…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Spencer S. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
(People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 860-861, fn. 3 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 , 62 P.3d 1 ]; see also In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843, 846 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ].) It is true that a constitutional right “may be waived either directly or by inaction.” (People v. Workman (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 533, 535 [ 263 P.2d 458 ].) Nonetheless, appellate courts have discretion to address constitutional issues raised on appeal (Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1103 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 ]), particularly where the issue presented is “a pure question of law” turning on undisputed fact…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re AARON B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMES B., Defendant and Appellant.
A071634.
California Court of Appeal.
Jun 19, 1996.
46 Cal. App. 4th 843
Haning.
Cited by 84 opinions  |  Published

[*844] COUNSEL

P. Cecilia Storr for Defendant and Appellant.

Tamara C. Falor, County Counsel, and Nancy B. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[1]]

OPINION

HANING, J.

James "Terry" B. appeals a July 26, 1995, order terminating his parental rights to his sons Aaron, born September 23, 1987, and Dustin, born November 24, 1989. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] § 366.26.) He contends the court failed to consider the less detrimental alternatives of long-term foster care and guardianship, that there is insufficient evidence that the minors are adoptable, and that the adoption assessment report was inadequate. The mother's parental rights were also terminated, but she does not appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In October 1993 petitions were filed under section 300, subdivision (b) for failure to protect. In June 1995 this court denied appellant's writ petition[*845] seeking review of the trial court's order at the 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26, after determining the court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. (James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1014, 1016, 1021 [41 Cal. Rptr.2d 762].) The decision expressly barred appellant "from making further challenges to the order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26." (Id. at p. 1021.)

In early March 1995, appellant filed a petition seeking the appointment of his stepdaughter as guardian of the minors. In late March respondent opposed the petition on the grounds that a hearing had been set to develop a permanent plan, that guardianship should not be considered until a determination was made about the adoptability of the children, and that guardianship was one of the options for the permanent plan. Social worker Leslie Cooper's declaration submitted with the opposition stated that when she went to the stepdaughter's home to attempt a home study, the stepdaughter refused to let her in, stating she was not prepared and the house was a mess. Cooper observed four adults and three babies on the porch. All the adults, with the exception of the stepdaughter, appeared to be under the influence, and the babies were dirty.

Appellant failed to appear at the April 1995 hearing on the guardianship petition, but he was represented by counsel. The hearing on the petition was combined with the section 366.26 hearing. Appellant failed to appear at the June 1995 section 366.26 hearing, but was again represented by counsel.

Appellant failed to appear at the July 1995 section 366.26 hearing and his counsel noted she had had no contact with him since the hearing was set. When the court asked if everyone was ready to proceed, appellant's counsel stated, "This is not our contest." Appellant's counsel also noted that appellant had been served with all of the relevant documents, and that she had filed the guardianship petition at his request and he had not been in contact with her despite her request that he contact her before each court hearing.

The social worker's section 366.26 report noted that on May 31, 1995, the children had moved to the home of their paternal uncle as a "fos-adopt" placement. Attached to it was an adoption assessment which concluded the children were adoptable and recommended termination of parental rights and adoption by their uncle and his family. A guardianship home evaluation of appellant's stepdaughter recommended denial of the guardianship petition based upon her demonstrated inability to "follow through."

[*846] At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the guardianship petition, found the children were adoptable and terminated the parental rights of both parents.

DISCUSSION

I

(1) Appellant contends the adoption assessment was inadequate in several respects. He concludes that due to the assessment's inadequacy, the court erred in terminating his parental rights and finding the children adoptable.

Respondent rejoins that appellant waived the issue of the adequacy of the adoption assessment by failing to raise it below. (See In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal. App.4th 407, 411-412 [15 Cal. Rptr.2d 613] [by failing to object to the assessment reports at the section 366.26 hearing, appellant waived the issue of inadequacy of the reports on appeal].)

We recently have been deluged with similar cases in which the appellant raises issues on appeal without having appeared or made a record in the trial court. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we again cite the general rule: "[A] party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court. [Citation.] Any other rule would `"`permit a party to play fast and loose with the administration of justice by deliberately standing by without making an objection of which he is aware and thereby permitting the proceedings to go to a conclusion which he may acquiesce in, if favorable, and which he may avoid, if not.'" [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal. App.3d 403, 411-412 [286 Cal. Rptr. 592].) Appellant failed to make court appearances below, failed to keep in contact with his attorney, failed to object to the challenged reports below, and failed to provide the trial court with evidence supporting his position. Consequently, he cannot raise the issue on appeal.

II[3]

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .

[*847] DISPOSITION

Affirmed.

Peterson, P.J., and King, J., concurred.

1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, part II of this opinion is not certified for publication.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3 See footnote 1, ante, page 843.