In re Angelica M.
Filed 7/27/06 In re Angelica M. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| In re ANGELICA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCY H., Defendant and Appellant. | C051440 (Sup.Ct.No. JD221293)
|
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH M., Defendant and Appellant. | C051620 (Sup.Ct.No. JD221293)
|
Appellants Marcy H. and Kenneth M., the mother and father of Angelica M. (the minor) appeal from the juvenile court's
order terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) They claim the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the juvenile court violated the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We shall reverse and remand for proper notice.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2004, DHHS filed an original juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the minor Angelica M. and her half-sister, Destiny H.[1] The petition alleged the mother had mental health issues, had lost parental rights for the minor's sibling, T.H., and had a history of domestic violence with her partner.
At the October 14 detention hearing, the maternal grandfather told the juvenile court the minor's great-great-grandmother had Indian heritage. He did not know the woman's name or her tribe. The detention report indicated the Indian Child Welfare Act might apply. The juvenile court ordered DHHS to notify the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The jurisdiction/disposition report filed on November 29, 2004, stated the ICWA did not apply. This statement was reiterated in subsequent reports from DHHS.
The juvenile court sustained the petition and declared the minor a dependent child of the court. Reunification services were ordered for the mother, but not the father.
The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing at the May 23, 2005 six-month review hearing. On September 19, 2005, and October 26, 2005, the juvenile court found that â€
