legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re I.M.
Appellant T. J. (mother) appeals from juvenile court orders sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] petition as well as a subsequent section 342 petition on behalf of her daughter, I. M. (I., born Oct. 1995). She contends that there is no evidence to support the allegations in either petition. She further argues that even if dependency jurisdiction could be found, there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal of I. from mother’s custody; alternative remedies were available. Finally, mother asserts that the juvenile court erred when it failed to ensure compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
To the extent mother attacks the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s orders. However, as the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes, we agree that ICWA notice was deficient. Those deficiencies do not compel reversal of the juvenile court’s order. Rather, pursuant to In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, this matter is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing DCFS to provide proper ICWA notice.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale