In re Arianna L.
Filed 8/10/06 In re Arianna L. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re ARIANNA L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KATRINA L., Defendant and Appellant. | F049711
(Super. Ct. Nos. 507580, 507581, 507582)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Kimball J.P. Sargeant, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Carrie Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Katrina J. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her three children.[1] She joins in an argument made by the children's father in his appeal from the termination orders, In re Arianna L. et al. (case No. F049757). The father challenged an earlier finding of the Stanislaus County Superior Court that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply to the children. Specifically, he complained respondent Stanislaus County Community Services Agency and previously Contra Costa authorities misspelled the children's first names and omitted his place of birth on paperwork sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the tribes with which the children might be eligible for membership.
The father did not persuade this court to reverse the termination orders. As we explained in our opinion, the time to challenge the superior court's finding that ICWA did not apply had passed. (In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 185.) Second, it appeared from the record that the parents forfeited, if not waived, any objection to the agency's spelling of their children's first names. (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) Alternatively, because the factual basis for giving ICWA notice in this case was the maternal grandmother's statement that the children's maternal great-uncle and maternal great-great-grandfather were registered with the Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw tribes of Oklahoma, it was unreasonable for appellant to argue that the misspelling of the children's first names or the omission of their father's place of birth could have had any impact on the various tribes' ability to search their membership records for the children's distant maternal relatives.
Because appellant raises no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated her parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The orders terminating parental rights are affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Real Estate Attorney.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Cornell, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
