F.P., In re (2021) B307313 B307313; filed 2/24/21. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B307313.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B307313.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Conjoint counseling after a supported no-visitation detriment finding; alternative merits ruling after forfeiture. Filed February 24, 2021; publication ordered March 16, 2021. > Having Fidel’s therapist decide when conjoint counseling would be appropriate was not, as mother contends, an unlawful delegation of judicial power. Unlike visitation, there is no statutory right to counseling. Counseling is merely a service the court may order if the court thinks it would benefit the parent and the child. (§ 361.5.) A court may properly decline to order conjoint counseling if the child’s therapist believes the child is not ready for it. (In re Andrea G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 547, 556.) The juvenile court’s decision to order conjoint counseling when deemed appropriate by Fidel’s therapist was not an improper delegation of judicial power. — F.P., In re (2021) B307313, slip op., p. 12.