legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re J.C. CA2/8
A father appeals an order terminating parental rights over his daughter, J.C. He challenges, not the merits of the termination decision, but the juvenile court’s earlier determination the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (the Act) does not apply. We affirm.
The father argues both the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services failed to discharge their initial duties of inquiry under the Act and related California law. Citing Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), he argues the Department learned of extended family members on his side yet erred by not asking them about the child’s possible Indian heritage. The father’s arguments fail.
We review findings under the Act for substantial evidence. (In re Josiah T. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 388, 401 (Josiah T.).) Substantial evidence supports findings that the Act did not apply and that the duty of inquiry was met here.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale