Fear Not Law Articles: In re A.T.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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,

MICHELLE T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F050787

(Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ300238)

O P I N I O N

THE COURT^*

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

Mario de Solenni, 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-

Michelle T. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter, A.T.^{^[1]} Appellant joins in an argument made by A.T.'s father in his appeal, In re A.T. (case no. F050850). The father claimed 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.).

In our opinion affirming the termination order, we rejected the father's argument as untimely (In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 185), speculative without affirmatively showing error on the record (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564) by failing to provide a complete record, and misinterpreting our recent opinion in In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450. Because the mother in her appeal raised no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated her parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

^* Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.

^{^[1]} All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Description	Michelle T. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf.and Inst. Code, S 366.26) to her daughter, A.T. Appellant joins in an argument made by A.T.'s father in his appeal, In re A.T. (case no. F050850). The father claimed 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.). In court's opinion affirming the termination order, we rejected the father's argument as untimely (In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 185), speculative without affirmatively showing error on the record (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564) by failing to provide a complete record, and misinterpreting our recent opinion in In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450. Because the mother in her appeal raised no independent claim of error, court conclude the court properly terminated her parental rights.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.