In re N.N.















Filed 7/16/12 In re
N.N. CA3







NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED









California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Butte)

----






>

In re N.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	C068228
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.N., Defendant and Appellant.	(Super. Ct. No. J32000)

Appellant S.N.,
the mother of the minor N.N., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders
terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395,
366.26.) She contends the href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Butte County
Department of Employment and Social Services (DESS) and the juvenile court did
not comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Since mother’s
sole contention concerns ICWA notification, we offer an abbreviated summary of
the dependency’s factual and procedural background.

In March 2008 DESS
filed a dependency action alleging
jurisdiction over the minor and his siblings, D.N. and S.N.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] The petition alleged that the minors were at
risk of serious harm because mother and the father, K.G.,href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
had longstanding substance abuse problems that periodically prevented them from
caring for their children. It was filed
after an incident in March 2008, when mother was arrested for being under the
influence of a controlled substance and father was intoxicated when a social
worker brought the children to him.

Mother’s extensive
child welfare history includes a prior dependency action involving the minor
and his siblings. The prior petition was
sustained in July 2005, and the children were removed from the parents’ custody
in August 2005. They were returned to
mother’s custody under a family maintenance plan in January 2006.

The juvenile court
sustained the instant petition in March 2008 after the parents waived
their trial rights as to jurisdiction.
The juvenile court ordered
reunification services for the parents in June 2008.

The juvenile court
terminated reunification services and
set a selection and implementation hearing in April 2009. The selection and implementation hearing was
continued and ultimately taken off calendar while DESS searched for an adoptive
home. The minor moved into a prospective
adoptive home in June 2010; he developed substantial emotional ties to the
potential adoptive parents, who were committed to adopting him.

At the selection
and implementation hearing, mother’s counsel informed the juvenile court that
he had not had any recent contact with her.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights and ordered a permanent
plan of adoption.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends
there was a failure to comply with the notice requirements of the ICWA. We disagree.

The ICWA
protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and
security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting
tribal participation in, dependency actions.
(25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912.) These interests are protected by providing
notice of pending proceedings that could affect the status of the Indian
children with respect to the tribe.
Notice to the Indian tribe is triggered if the court “knows or has
reason to know that an Indian child is involved.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 224.2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).)

The juvenile court
asked mother at the March 2008 detention hearing whether she had any “Native
American ancestry.” Mother replied: “I’m not sure. My grandmother said I had Indian ancestry,
but I haven’t been able to check it out and to find out that information. I’m not sure.” Counsel for DESS told the court: “Your Honor, the Court on January 5th, 2006 ruled that the
Indian [Child] Welfare Act did not apply to these children.” The juvenile court said, “Well, I will make
that finding. [¶] If you have any information, provide that
information.” Counsel for DESS told
mother to give any additional information to the social worker, and she agreed
to do so.

That same day,
mother filled out and signed an ICWA-020 form, checking the box by the line
stating “I may have Indian ancestry.”
Mother did not fill out the part of the form for listing any tribe or
band to which she was claiming heritage.
She also left blank the parts of the form regarding her parents’ and
grandparents’ Indian heritage. The
juvenile court made no further ruling concerning the ICWA.

Mother contends
DESS’s representation regarding the court’s ICWA ruling in the prior dependency
proceeding was insufficient justification for the juvenile court to find that
the ICWA did not apply in the present case.
Mother notes the record contains no documentation regarding the prior
ruling. Since mother represented she may
have Indian heritage and DESS’s representation regarding ICWA compliance at the
prior dependency was allegedly “insufficient to establish proper compliance
with the ICWA in the current proceeding,” mother concludes that the orders
terminating parental rights must be reversed and the case remanded for
additional inquiry into her claim of Indian heritage.

Mother’s
contention founders on the mistaken assumption that her claim of Indian
heritage was sufficient to trigger the notice and inquiry provisions of the
ICWA. Her claim on Indian heritage
consisted of two components: first, a
hearsay statement from the maternal great-grandmother regarding an unspecified
claim of Indian ancestry, which mother did not necessarily believe and had not
verified; and second, mother’s statement on a form that she might have Indian
ancestry, with the tribe unknown and no evidence of membership. These claims are too vague and insubstantial
to trigger notice under the ICWA. (See In
re J.D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 118,
125 [paternal grandmother indicating possible Indian ancestry related by her
grandmother, tribe unknown, notice not required]; In re O.K. (2003)
106 Cal.App.4th 152, 154, 157 [grandmother’s saying children may have
Indian heritage, no known tribe, “too vague and speculative to give the
juvenile court any reason to believe the minors might be Indian children”]; In
re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 194, 198 [paternal grandmother’s
statement that there might be Indian ancestry on her mother’s side, tribe
unknown, where her mother was deceased and born on a reservation was “no basis
whatever for continuing to assume the minor must be an Indian child within the
meaning of the [ICWA]”].)

On these facts, no
notice under the ICWA was required.
Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in finding the ICWA did not
apply.

DISPOSITION

The orders
terminating parental rights are affirmed.







RAYE , P. J.







We concur:







HULL , J.







ROBIE , J.