In re N.H.
A.H., the mother of four-year-old N.H. and one-year-old I.H., appeals from a juvenile court order denying her request to change court order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (388 petition), and also appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. In addition, D.J., the biological father of I.H., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388, 395.)[1] E.G., the alleged father of N.H. and the uncle of D.J., is not a party to this appeal.
As a threshold matter, respondent Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) contends A.H. (mother) and D.J. (father) failed to appeal the order denying their 388 petition, because they did not check the pertinent box on the notice of appeal. We conclude, however, that because mother and father submitted a letter with their notices of appeal providing additional information, and notices of appeal are entitled to liberal construction in favor of sufficiency, the letter and notices of appeal are sufficient.
Turning to the contentions of mother and father, mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her 388 petition. Father joins mother’s arguments, arguing that if mother is successful, the order against father must be reversed too. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the juvenile court orders.[2]
Comments on In re N.H.