In re E.R. CA4/2
This case concerns defendant and appellant, D.M. (father), and his teenage daughter, E.R., who was 13 years old when this case began in May 2015. In April 2017, the juvenile court appointed legal guardians for E.R. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. Father appeals from this order and raises only one argument: his counsel was ineffective because she failed to request presumed father status. We affirm. Father fails to establish counsel’s performance was deficient or that her performance prejudiced him.
Comments on In re E.R. CA4/2