In re A.W.
Filed 5/4/06 In re A.W. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of A. W., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187322 (Super. Ct. No. CK56586) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES W., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Valerie Lynn Skeba, Referee. Order is reversed and remanded with directions.
Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
James W. appeals from the order of the juvenile court that terminated his parental rights to A. W. He argues that the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)), and that the evidence does not support the court's finding that the beneficial-parental‑relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).)[1] The juvenile court did not err in terminating parental rights. However, the County Counsel representing the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) admits that ICWA was not obeyed. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand the case solely for the purpose of compliance with that Act.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS
1. The reunification period.
At the time A. was born, his mother, N. F. was a dependent child of the juvenile court.[2] When he was seven months old, James called the Department to report that he and N. had been fighting the previous night. The parents frequently engaged in increasingly physical altercations. When the social worker threatened to detain the baby, N. ran out of the house with A. and threatened to kill herself and the baby. Approximately 90 minutes after law enforcement responded to the call, N. returned without the child and refused to reveal his location. With James' help, the social worker located the child and detained him.
The juvenile court ordered A. detained and suitably placed. James' mother indicated to the court that there was Apache heritage in her family. In detailed fashion, the court ordered the Department to: investigate the claim of Native American heritage; obtain the family tree from the paternal grandmother; interview the paternal great, great grandmother about native American ancestry; give the ICWA notices -- including the SOC 820 forms -- to all federally recognized Apache tribes and to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) as required by law; include in the next report the results of the Department's investigation, proof of notices, return receipts and all responses for the next hearing.
The Department reported to the court for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in September 2004, that both parents â€