In re Jay H.
Jessica T. and David H. appeal an order terminating their parental rights to their son, Jay H. Jessica asserts the court prejudicially erred by not addressing her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition before it held the section 366.26 hearing. Both parents contend the court erred by not applying the exception to adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). In addition, they maintain the court erred by finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply, and each parent joins the other's arguments. Court reverse and remand to allow compliance with the ICWA.
Comments on In re Jay H.