In Re David H.

William F. Pirtle for Minor.

OPINION

CROSKEY, Acting P.J.

Rosalinda E. and Thomas H., the parents of the minor, David H., appeal under Welfare and Institutions Code section 395 [1] from the order of the juvenile court, entered on November 16, 1993, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order terminating their parental rights under section 366.26. [2]

We affirm the court's order. The court correctly found it had no jurisdiction to vacate its former order terminating parental rights under section 366.26, despite the parents' claim that the order had been obtained by fraud. We hold that a claim of fraud in the entry of an order terminating parental rights cannot be established where the alleged fraud consists of misrepresentations concerning the child's adoptive placement. We also conclude that the order terminating the father's parental rights (§ 366.26) was valid in spite of the fact that he was not afforded a full 12 months of reunification services.

On June 20, 1990, when David was three weeks of age, a petition was filed to have him declared a dependent child of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (j), on grounds that he was neglected, was…