Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JD224485, JD224486, JD224487, JD225267
RAYE, Acting P.J.
Appellant, the father of the minors, appeals in pro. per. from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As the record fails to support his claim, we shall affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed petitions in June 2006 regarding three minors -- ages seven, five, and almost 17 months -- based on substance abuse by appellant and the minors’ mother, and the parents’ use of methamphetamine in the home. At the detention hearing, appellant claimed possible Indian heritage with the Blackfeet and Hopi tribes, and the juvenile court ordered that notice be provided to those tribes. The court also ordered appellant to submit a questionnaire regarding his Indian heritage to the Department within two days of the hearing. The juvenile court ordered that the minors were to remain in the care of the parents pending the jurisdictional hearing, although the minors’ mother was incarcerated.
At the jurisdictional hearing nearly two months later, the parents submitted on the jurisdictional issues. Appellant had not complied with the court’s order to submit a questionnaire concerning his Indian heritage, but he acknowledged in court that the information on the notice sent pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) was correct except that he was no longer incarcerated. The matters were continued for a dispositional hearing.
Prior to the dispositional hearing, the minors were placed in protective custody because appellant had not complied with drug testing or treatment and had left the minors with the maternal grandmother, who had a history of drug use and child protective referrals and was considered an “inappropriate caregiver.” When the minors were examined for medical clearance, the youngest minor tested positive for methamphetamine, and subsequent petitions were filed. (§ 342.)
In December 2006 the mother gave birth to the fourth minor while incarcerated at the California Institute for Women. A petition was filed concerning this minor, by which time both parents were in custody.
At a hearing in February 2007 the court sustained the pending petitions and denied the mother reunification services. Appellant, who had been transferred from local custody to state prison, was not present, and his dispositional hearing was continued. He again was not present on the date to which the hearing was continued because, once again, he had been transferred to another facility. The juvenile court denied the request of appellant’s attorney for a continuance and denied appellant reunification services. The date previously set for the section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minor was confirmed.
According to the report for the section 366.26 hearing, the three older minors had been placed together in a prospective adoptive home, where they had bonded with the adoptive parents and were thriving. A positive home study had been completed concerning the prospective adoptive parents, who were committed to adopting the minors. The youngest minor had been placed in a prospective adoptive home when he was 15 days old, and the adoptive parents there had passed a home study and were committed to adopting him.
Appellant, who had signed a waiver of his right to appear the day before the section 366.26 hearing, was not present at the hearing and was represented by the mother’s attorney, who was “standing in” for appellant’s attorney. The juvenile court made a finding that the minors were not Indian children for purposes of the ICWA, after which it terminated parental rights and ordered a permanent plan of adoption.
DISCUSSION
Appellant asserts it is his “understanding . . . that it was the ineffective assistance of counsel that ultimately led to the court order terminating parental rights.” The Department urges us to strike appellant’s brief because it does not, among other violations of the California Rules of Court, contain a summary of significant facts, a table of contents or authorities, or citations to the record. (California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(A), 8.204(a)(1)(B), 8.204(a)(2)(C), 8.204(e)(2).) We exercise our discretion to disregard the noncompliance. (Rule 8.204(e)(2)(C).)
All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
Appellant maintains his rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel were violated. In support of this argument, he relies on information that is not in the record concerning the circumstances surrounding his signing of the waiver of his appearance for the section 366.26 hearing and his communication with his attorney regarding what would occur at that hearing. However, information that is outside of the record cannot be considered by this court on appellate review. (People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 537-538; rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) [summary of significant facts limited to matters in record].) Appellant’s claim that his due process rights were violated by his trial attorney’s failure to communicate with him prior to the section 366.26 hearing is not supported by the record.
Appellant also maintains he was never told by his attorney or the court that more information was needed regarding the minors’ Indian heritage and claims “if [he] had been made aware by his counsel [he] could have provided the necessary information.” To the extent appellant’s claim is based on an assertion that his attorney failed to communicate with him regarding the minors’ Indian heritage, this -- like the previous claim -- is based on information not contained in the record.
In any event, the record discloses that appellant had ample opportunity to provide information concerning his Indian heritage. At the initial hearing in the matters, appellant was ordered to complete a questionnaire regarding his Indian heritage and return it to the Department within two days, which he failed to do. At a hearing eight weeks later, he acknowledged he had not completed the questionnaire, but he reviewed the ICWA notice and stated it was correct except that he was not incarcerated. After a letter from the Blackfeet Tribe in May 2007 sought additional information, the Department sent the tribes an ICWA notice that included extensive information about all known Indian relatives. The juvenile court had no basis to conclude that appellant, who failed to provide information concerning his Indian heritage when ordered to do so, possessed any additional information on the subject. Nor do we.
In addition to the Blackfeet and Hopi tribes, notice was sent to the Choctaw tribes based on Choctaw heritage claimed by the maternal grandmother.
As the record does not support that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel, we reject his claim.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ, J. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.