In re A.T.
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.
Comments on In re A.T.