In re Deanna L.

Filed 2/9/06 In re Deanna L. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Diana L. (Mother) appeals from orders terminating her parental rights and declaring her two minor children were adoptable. Mother raises numerous issues on appeal. She asserts the juvenile court erred in: 1) failing to consider the children's own views regarding the termination of their relationship with Mother and with their siblings, 2) precluding the children from testifying at the termination hearing, 3) denying Mother's request for a sibling-bond study, 4) failing to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA), and 5) issuing nunc pro tunc orders modifying the termination orders. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This family has a long history with child welfare services. Since 1999, there have been numerous referrals to the Sonoma County Human Services Department (the Department) based on allegations of physical and emotional abuse by Mother. Mother has five children: Jessica, born in 1984; Erika, born in 1986; Rebekah, born in 1988; Jonathan, born in 1993; and Deanna, born in 1996. All five of Mother's children have been removed from her care at least once. With the exception of Jessica, all of the children, at one point in their lives, have been declared dependents of the Sonoma County juvenile court.

The Petition and Detention

On April 2, 2004, the Department filed the most recent dependency petition regarding Jonathan and Deanna. The petition alleged Jonathan and Deanna had been removed from Mother's care and detained on March 31, 2004; Michael L. was deemed the presumed father (Father). The petition alleged the children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j), based on the allegation that Mother had physically assaulted Jonathan, kicking him in the leg and striking him on the back of his head with her hand causing injury to him, including bruising on the shin area of his leg. The petition also alleged that Jonathan had said that he was afraid to return to Mother's care. The petition additionally alleged that there was a substantial risk that Jonathan and Deanna would be abused due to prior incidents of sibling abuse. The petition alleged that in January 2002, Mother physically assaulted the children's sister, Rebekah, including sitting on top of her and forcibly pinching her trapexius muscles, which left red finger marks on the side of Rebekah's neck. As a result of this incident, Rebekah was placed in protective custody, and all three children, Rebekah, Jonathan, and Deanna, were declared dependents. Mother was then offered services and failed to reunify with Rebekah. Finally, the petition alleged that in February 2001, Mother struck the children's sister, Erika, in the face, causing her nose to bleed.

In its detention report, the Department informed the court that Erika had been removed from Mother's care in February 2001, following Erika's second suicide attempt. The Department reported that Erika had been a dependent of the Sonoma County Juvenile Court and had subsequently reunified with Mother; Erika's case was closed in September 2003. The Department further informed the court that Rebekah was 15 years old and was currently a dependent of the Sonoma County juvenile court, with a permanent plan of long-term foster care. In the investigation narrative, the Department reported that Jonathan said that Deanna cried all the time. The Department also noted that a few years earlier, Jonathan had tried to hurt himself, by tying a string to a tree, and the other end to his neck.

The Contested Jurisdiction/Disposition Proceedings

In a report prepared for the May 12, 2004 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the Department stated Father's whereabouts were unknown. The Department reported that Mother said she did not have any Native American heritage, and that since the whereabouts of Father were unknown, the social worker had been unable to get a statement from him regarding ICWA. The Department recommended that reunification services not be offered to Mother due to her failure to reunify with Rebekah and Erika, after their respective detentions in 2002 and 2001.

The Department attached an investigation narrative from January 14, 2002, pertaining to Rebekah's case. In this report, the Department noted that Mother had said that the children might be Cherokee on Father's side, but doubted that children were registered or eligible to be registered. The report further noted that Father was contacted on January 14, 2002, and was informed about Rebekah's situation; the report is silent as to whether Father was asked about his alleged Cherokee heritage.

The jurisdiction/disposition report noted that Mother had been consistent with her biweekly, supervised visits with Jonathan and Deanna. However, two visits ended early because of Mother's inappropriate behavior. The report noted that one visit ended after approximately five minutes because Mother â€