In re Z.M.
M.H. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to Z.M., her daughter born in December 2005. Mother contends that reversal of the order is required on dual grounds: (1) Mothers lack of legal representation rendered the permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26)[1]fundamentally unfair; and (2) notice mandated pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; see also, 224.2, subd. (a)) was defective. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes both errors. As to the denial of counsel at the section 366.26 hearing, DCFS contends that the error was not prejudicial. As to the defective ICWA notice, DCFS contends that the order terminating parental rights should be reversed and the matter remanded for the purpose of notifying the appropriate tribal entities. If no tribe responds that Z.M. is an Indian child, the court should reinstate the termination order. Court agree with DCFSs contentions and therefore reverse and remand with directions.
Comments on In re Z.M.