legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Alex S.

In re Alex S.
02:20:2007

In re Alex S


In re Alex S.


Filed 1/16/07  In re Alex S. CA4/2


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


 


FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


 


DIVISION TWO










In re ALEX S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,


            Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


JOHN S.,


            Defendant and Appellant.



            E040944


            (Super.Ct.No. RIJ107399)


            O P I N I O N



            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Becky Dugan, Judge.  Reversed with directions.


            Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


            Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Michael C. Puentes, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


            No appearance for Minor.


I.  INTRODUCTION


John S. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his son, Alex S.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, §  366.26.)[1]  Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. §  1901 et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply to the proceedings, because the record does not contain copies of any notices or certified mail return receipts showing that the Department of Public Social Services (the Department) complied with the notice requirements of the ICWA.  (25 U.S.C. §  1912(a).)  On this basis, Father requests that we reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand the matter â€





Description Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his son, (Welf. and Inst. Code, S 366.26.) Father contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.S 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply to the proceedings, because the record does not contain copies of any notices or certified mail return receipts showing that the Department of Public Social Services (the Department) complied with the notice requirements of the ICWA. (25 U.S.C. S 1912(a).) On this basis, Father requests that court reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand the matter "for proper notice under the ICWA and a new jurisdictional hearing. (Italics added.)
Court reverse the judgment and order terminating parental rights, and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with Jonathon S. Court do not order a new jurisdictional hearing, nor do we reverse any orders other than the order terminating parental rights.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

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

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale