In re Darien B

Filed 5/19/06 In re Darien B. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

Introduction

Appellant C.J. appeals a permanency planning order of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and ordering a permanent plan of long-term foster care for her minor child, Darien B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)^[1]. She claims the evidence showed she had made significant progress in complying with her reunification plan and there was insufficient evidence that returning Darien to her custody would be detrimental to his safety and well being. Appellant also contends the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We disagree and affirm the judgment.

II.

Facts and Procedural History

This family came to the attention of the Contra Costa County Bureau of Family and Children's Services (the Bureau) after it was discovered that Darien, who was four years old, was suffering from open sores on his buttocks. The Bureau's report noted that Darien was developmentally delayed and not toilet trained, and he had to have his diaper changed often during the day. Darien's preschool teachers noticed that, over time, the problem with broken and inflamed skin on Darien's buttocks was getting worse and that appellant was not responsive to their attempts to have her get medical attention for the problem. The teachers also observed that Darien often came to school dirty, with an offensive odor, which caused the other children to complain and avoid playing with him.

Appellant had an extensive history of methamphetamine use and Darien reportedly was born methamphetamine-exposed. He had four older siblings, ranging in age from 7 to 14, all of whom resided with appellant. In investigating the situation, the Bureau found that the children's basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter were being met and there was no sign of abuse or neglect. The Bureau recommended that only Darien be detained and that appellant participate in the recommended services, including random drug testing and substance abuse counseling.

After a contested jurisdictional hearing held in August 2003, the court sustained the petition alleging Darien came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) because of appellant's history of drug use and failure to seek medical attention â€