In re E.T.
L.T. (father) appeals from the findings and orders of April 21, 2009 sustaining a subsequent petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342[1](subsequent petition) and removing his daughter E.T. from his custody. He contends notice of the subsequent petition was defective and substantial evidence does not support the findings. We hold father forfeited his defective notice contentions and, in any event, notice was not defective. Court further hold substantial evidence supports the findings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on In re E.T.