Alliance for Children's Rights v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1129 involved DSS regulations requiring social workers to visit each dependent child monthly, unless certain exceptions were established. (Alliance, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1132, 1142.) A children's advocacy group petitioned the juvenile court, challenging the practice of the county department of child and family services of granting waivers from the monthly visitation requirement. Specifically, the group sought a special order prohibiting the use of visitation waivers by the department. (Id. at pp. 1132-1133.) The juvenile court refused to issue such a prohibition, but did issue an order that required the social worker to submit each waiver to the judicial officer overseeing a dependency case to determine whether a waiver is in the best interest of the particular child. (Id. at pp. 1132, 1138, 1142.) The department appealed, arguing the ruling violated the separation of powers doctrine because it imposed judicial review on decisions properly made exclusively by the department. (Id. at pp. 1132, 1142.) The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that "once a child becomes a dependent ward, 'the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child ... .' ( 362, subd. (a).)" (Alliance, supra, at pp. 1141, 1143.) The department conceded that the juvenile court is empowered and obligated to review the frequency and adequacy of visitation as part of its ongoing supervision of a dependent child. (Id. at pp. 1137, 1143.) The court concluded that the juvenile court's order did not violate the separation of powers or "improperly divest the department of its discretionary role in the waiver process." (Id. at p. 1143.) The court emphasized: "The trial court's order does not affect the department's decision whether a waiver is appropriate in particular cases. The order does not prevent the department from using waivers in general. The order retains the department's discretion to initiate and study whether a waiver is appropriate in an individual case. ... The only additional step contemplated by the order is court review before, rather than after, less frequent visitation is put in place." (Id. at pp. 1142-1143.)