In re Christopher G.

Filed 7/26/07 In re Christopher G. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the unpublished opinion filed herein on June 27, 2007, be modified as follows:

1. On page 9, the second sentence of the second full paragraph, which states, The court found that notice had been provided as required by law, is deleted; the third sentence of that paragraph is modified to begin with Among other things, the court . . . and the word also is deleted from that third sentence, so that the paragraph now reads:

At the March 14, 2005 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, both mother and father submitted to the courts jurisdiction on the basis of information provided to the court, including the March 14, 2005 social study report. Among other things, the court indicated that it had read and considered the social study report and admitted it into evidence, and that [t]he factual grounds to support the findings requiring the assumption of custody are those stated on the record and/or in the report of the social worker.

2. The phrase and the issue is not addressed by the parties in the present appeal, is deleted from the third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 13, which now reads:

Although appellate courts are not in complete agreement on the point, we are of the view that a juvenile courts finding that ICWA does not apply may be implied from the record.

3. The phrase found that all notices had been provided as required by law, contained within the sentence which begins on the last line of page 13 and continues onto page 14, is deleted. The sentence now reads:

The juvenile court indicated that it had read and considered the March 14, 2005 social study report (which referred to and attached the tribes responses), and stated that

[t]he factual grounds to support the findings requiring the assumption of custody are those stated on the record and/or in the report of the social worker.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellants petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated: ______________________

_________________________

Haerle, Acting P.J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.