legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Victor G.
Victor G., Jr. (father) appeals from the juvenile courts order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]terminating his parental rights in Victor G. III (Victor) and Steven G. (together, the children). Father contends that he was improperly denied visitation rights and was thereby prevented from establishing that he maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, pursuant to section 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A). Father also contends that the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1902 et seq.) (ICWA). We conclude that father forfeited the visitation issue by failing to raise it in the juvenile court. We further conclude that the juvenile court erred by failing to comply with its duty of inquiry under ICWA with respect to Victor, but that father lacks standing to assert the error with respect to Steven. Court therefore affirm the order terminating fathers parental rights as to Steven, but reverse the order as to Victor and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the juvenile court to inquire of father whether Victor is or may be an Indian child and if so, to comply with ICWA.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale