In re J.M. CA2/8

INTRODUCTION

A.C., the alleged father of minor J.M., appeals from the order terminating his parental rights over J.M. under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26. A.C. argues the juvenile court erred in (1) failing to make a timely ruling on his request for presumed father status, (2) terminating his parental rights without a finding of unfitness, and (3) failing to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law. A.C. also has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that to the extent he forfeited any of his claims on direct appeal, such forfeiture was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. As to the direct appeal, we conclude A.C. forfeited his claim regarding the juvenile court’s failure to declare him a presumed father. The court found that A.C. was an alleged father prior to the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, and A.C. never filed an appeal from the dispositional order to challenge the paternity finding. We further conclude the juvenile court did not violate due process in terminating A.C.’s parental rights because the court made detriment…