In re J.R.
R.R., father of the minor, appeals from orders sustaining the supplemental petition, removing the minor from father’s custody, and returning to a permanent plan of long-term foster care. ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 31 s YCQJFO000001 xpl 1 l "Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 395" Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 395; statutory references that follow are to the ADDIN BA xc <@ost> xl 29 s YCQJFO000012 xpl 2 l "Welfare and Institutions Code" Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.) Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support both the jurisdictional findings of the supplemental petition and the order removing the minor from his custody. Appellant further asserts there was a failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ( ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 25 s YCQJFO000002 xpl 1 l "25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq." 25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.). We conclude appellant is procedurally barred from raising the ICWA issue and that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings and orders and affirm the orders.
Facts and Proceedings
J.R., then one year old, was first detained in May 1999 in Los Angeles County. The parents had a history of violence and appellant is developmentally delayed and an Alta Regional Center client (Alta). After 12 months of services, mother’s services were terminated and the case was transferred to Sacramento County to facilitate services for appellant. By March 2001, the case was transferred back to Los Angeles County, the minor was placed with mother, and jurisdiction was terminated in October 2001.
Los Angeles County filed a new petition in September 2004 alleging mother caused the death of a sibling, thereby placing the minor at risk. The minor was detained and eventually placed with the paternal grandmother.
At the disposition hearing in December 2004, the court denied reunification services to mother and ordered services for appellant. The minor was in therapy with serious emotional and mental health issues. At the six-month review hearing, the court ordered further services for appellant.
Comments on In re J.R.