In re T.H. CA5

California Court of Appeal Apr 18, 2016 No. F072594Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parent who fails to timely challenge a juvenile court's ICWA findings or orders via appeal or writ petition forfeits the right to raise those issues in a subsequent appeal from a later proceeding.

Issues

Whether the department failed to make an adequate ICWA inquiry of the father.
Whether the ICWA notices were inadequate because they were mailed shortly before the section 366.26 hearing.
Whether the father forfeited his right to challenge ICWA compliance by failing to raise the issue in earlier proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Father did not object during the section 366.26 hearing or at any time prior to that hearing to a lack of ICWA inquiry or proper ICWA notice.”

Filed 4/15/16 In re T.H. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re T.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN F072594 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JJV068484A) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION B.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, John A. Rozum, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Amy-Marie Costa, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION At a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing, the trial court adopted a plan of guardianship for T.H. with a maternal great-aunt, granted visitation to father, and dismissed the dependency. Father’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) and that, therefore, the order must be reversed. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father is the biological father of T.H. J.H., mother, is the mother of T.H. and T.H.’s two younger half-siblings, L.H. and G.H. The half-siblings have a different father and are not the subject of this appeal. In 2013, mother and her male companion, Tommy, engaged in a violent altercation in front of the children. Mother has a history of mental health problems, including diagnoses of schizophrenia, Aspergers, depression, and bipolar disorder. A section 300 petition was filed on behalf of the children in March 2013 in Los Angeles County, but they were not adjudicated dependents of the juvenile court until May 27, 2014. On March 19, 2013, father was found to be the biological parent of T.H. Father was represented by counsel. Father was incarcerated at the time, and the juvenile court in Los Angeles ordered that father “receive[] services as an incarcerated parent.” The children were placed with a maternal great-aunt in Lancaster. The jurisdiction and disposition findings were not appealed. The section 366.21 status review report stated the ICWA did not apply. The report recommended the case be transferred to Tulare County as mother and one of the other

In re T.H. CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief