In re Alexander A.

Filed 8/9/06 In re Alexander A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy J. Heaslet, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riv. Super. Ct. assigned by Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Niccol Kording, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Valerie Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

Sonia S. (mother) is the mother of Alexander A. and Leslie A. (the minors). In this appeal, mother challenges the trial court's order terminating her parental rights and setting adoption as the permanent plan for the minors. Mother contends: 1) her due process rights were violated because she was not provided with an adoption assessment report as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (i);^[1] 2) substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the minors were likely to be adopted; and 3) the trial court erred when it found the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) does not apply because the Department of Public Social Services (department) never inquired as to whether the minors have Indian heritage. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Statement of Facts

The department filed a section 300 petition regarding the minors, then ages four and 22 months, on October 8, 2004. Mother had left the minors with a babysitter on September 11, 2004, and never returned to pick them up. After six days, the babysitter called the maternal grandmother to take the minors. On October 6, 2004, the grandmother called the department to have the children picked up because she was undergoing chemotherapy and was unable to take care of the minors. Mother was at that time living on the streets and had a substance abuse problem. Mother had left the

minors' father in 2003 because he physically abused her. The father's whereabouts were unknown, and he had a history of substance abuse and of stalking and threatening mother. Mother reported that the stalking was severe enough that it kept her from holding a steady job.

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing conducted on November 16, 2004, the trial court ordered the minors to remain in foster care and the department to provide mother with six months of reunification services.

On April 14, 2005, the department conducted an adoption assessment meeting regarding the minors. The participants concluded that the minors were adoptable and recommended the department hold a family conference to determine whether there was a relative interested in adopting the minors. Mother and several family members participated in the April 27, 2005, family conference. At the conclusion of the conference, the department agreed to continue reunification services to mother, and both mother and the extended family agreed to provide the department with the name and phone number of at least one relative who might be considered for possible placement. On June 21, 2005, the maternal grandmother stated she was interested in adopting the minors. It appears the maternal grandmother was not approved for placement because her own children, including mother, were removed for a time because their stepfather molested them and because the grandmother had a criminal history involving drug transportation, for which she served time in prison.

Mother failed to reunify with the minors or complete her case plan. At the six-month status review hearing held on June 9, 2005, the trial court terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) for October 6, 2005. At the section 366.26 hearing, the trial court terminated mother's parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan. This appeal followed.

Discussion

1. Adoption Assessment Report

Mother first contends that the department violated her right to due process because it did not order an adoption assessment or provide her with an adoption assessment report as required by section 366.21.

Whenever a juvenile court sets a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, section 366.21 requires the court to direct the department to conduct an adoption assessment to determine whether the child is likely to be adopted. Here, while it did perform an adoption assessment on April 14, 2005, before the six-month review hearing, the department did not provide the juvenile court or mother with an adoption assessment report.

â€