In re A

In re A.T.

Filed 2/6/07 In re A.T. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A. T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CHARLES T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F050850

(Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ300238-2)

O P I N I O N

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.

Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo

Charles T. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his daughter, A.T.^{^[1]} He contends the court erred at an earlier stage of the proceedings by not inquiring of him or ordering him to complete a form with regard to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). He also argues the court should have found termination would be detrimental to A.T. based on the parent/child relationship. On review, we will affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) detained nine-month-old A.T. in May 2005 due to her parents' profound neglect. Appellant's and the mother's inability to provide adequate care for their young daughter was largely a function of the parents' historic substance abuse. In addition, A.T. was at substantial risk of being sexually abused by appellant who was a registered sex offender. The Fresno County Superior Court consequently exercised its dependency jurisdiction over A.T. and removed her from parental custody. The court also denied each parent reunification services; in the case of appellant, the court so ruled pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) because he had a violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The superior court in turn set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for A.T.

Although appellant filed a notice of intent to seek writ review of the superior court's judgment, he never pursued the matter by filing a writ petition. As a result, this court dismissed the writ proceeding.

The court conducted the section 366.26 hearing in June 2006. There was no dispute that A.T. was adoptable. Instead, the hearing focused on the parents' independent claims that adoption would be detrimental to A.T. In the end, the parents did not persuade the court which found the child adoptable and terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

I. ICWA

At the time the department detained A.T., a social worker interviewed the child's mother and learned the mother did not claim any Indian heritage. The social worker also had the mother complete a Judicial Council form entitled â€

Description	Charles T. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to his daughter, A.T. He contends the court erred at an earlier stage of the proceedings by not inquiring of him or ordering him to complete a form with regard to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. S 1901 et seq.). He also argues the court should have found termination would be detrimental to A.T. based on the parent/child relationship. On review, court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.