In re D.V.
Filed 5/30/06 In re D.V. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re D. V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B185961 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK08064) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACQUELINE E., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven L. Berman, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Jacqueline E. appeals from the order terminating her parental rights over her daughter D. V. Appellant contends this order must be reversed because the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the dependency court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the court failed to apply ICWA's heightened evidentiary standard at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. We affirm the order terminating parental rights.[1]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
One day after D. V.'s birth, the San Bernardino Department of Children's Services (SBDCS) received a call from the hospital asking it to respond immediately. The hospital had ordered a psychiatric consultation for appellant. Due to appellant's mental health issues and her lack of a tangible plan to provide for the care, custody and control of D. V., SBDCS took D. V. into protective custody. Thereafter, it filed a petition on her behalf alleging she was a dependent child of the court within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.
Appellant's husband, Joseph V., advised SBDCS that he and appellant were married when D. V. was conceived and born, but he denied paternity. He explained that Theodore R., with whom appellant had a seven-month relationship, was D. V.'s biological father.[2] Joseph V. requested a paternity test.[3]
At the adjudication hearing, the San Bernardino Superior Court declared Joseph V. to be D. V.'s presumed father and Theodore R. to be an alleged father. The court also found true the allegations in the petition that appellant and Joseph V. have a mental health problem that impairs their ability to provide for the care, custody and control of D. V.; that Joseph V. has failed to protect D .V., in that he does not have a suitable living environment or supplies to meet D. V.'s needs; that Theodore R. is incarcerated and unable to parent; that D. V.'s siblings Devin S., David V. and Daniel V. were neglected;[4] that appellant and Joseph V. failed to reunify with these siblings; that appellant's and Joseph V.'s parental rights over David V. and Daniel V. have been terminated and that D. V. is at risk of neglect. The court then transferred D. V.'s case to Los Angeles County for disposition.
At the disposition hearing, the Los Angeles Superior Court declared D. V. a dependent child of the court under section 300, subdivisions (b), (g) and (j) and removed her from the parents' custody. The court ordered that no reunification services be provided to appellant, Joseph V. and Theodore R. pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) and (11) and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
The dependency proceedings were continued numerous times due to DCFS's failure to comply properly with the notice requirements of ICWA. Although the SBDCS had concluded that ICWA did not apply, DCFS prepared a report which stated that ICWA does or may apply. In Daniel V.'s case, Joseph V. had told a social worker that his paternal grandfather was full-blooded Sioux from the Oglala and Hidatsu tribes.
DCFS proceeded to comply with the notice requirements of ICWA, even though appellant consistently confirmed Joseph V.'s assertion that he is not D. V's biological father. Appellant advised DCFS that although she was married to Joseph V., they were separated at the time she conceived D. V. Appellant stated that Theodore R. was D. V.'s biological father. Appellant told Theodore R. she was pregnant with his child. Theodore R. showed no interest in seeing his child. Appellant, who is not Native American, stated that Theodore R. has no Native American heritage. Rather, he is Scottish and Irish.
On September 21, 2005, the dependency court found ICWA notice to be proper and terminated the parental rights of appellant, Joseph V. and Theodore R., thereby freeing D. V. for adoption. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The notice provisions of ICWA must be complied with only â€
