What is the test for an allegation that an abuse occurred because of alleged oral copulation of J?

We reject appellant's assertion that an abuse of discretion occurred because J.'s alleged oral copulation of him was uncorroborated and based on hearsay. To the contrary, H. was a percipient witness to this incident and the trial court properly permitted her to recount her observations. Moreover, at the time the court made its evidentiary ruling, nothing about the prosecution's offer of proof involved hearsay. Instead, it was during H.'s trial testimony when she (apparently for the first time) claimed that J. was "sucking [appellant's] dick" when J. went under the blanket. When asked how she knew that, H. testified that, after this incident, she had asked J. "what happened and she told me." The defense did not object at trial when H. testified about J.'s alleged statement involving oral copulation. As such, because appellant failed to preserve this argument for appellate review, it is forfeited. (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 756; see also People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 730.)