legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re D.J.

In re D.J.
07:27:2013





In re D




 

 

 

 

In re D.J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/13/13  In re D.J. CA2/5













>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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

 

SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
FIVE

 

 
>










In re D.J., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.


      B242917

 

      (Los Angeles
County

      Super. Ct.
No. CK92457)

 


 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

 

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

 

            v.

 

MICHELE B.,

 

            Defendant and Appellant.

 


 

 


 

            APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Rudolph A. Diaz, Judge.  Affirmed with directions.

            Karen B.
Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            John F.
Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Tracey
Dodds, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

            M.B.,
the mother of D.J., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300
and 361 dependency orders.  The mother
contends there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California
provisions.  The href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Children and Family Services
agrees.  We agree likewise.  (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460,
471-472.)  Upon remittitur issuance, the
juvenile court is to comply with the with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act
requirements and related state provisions.  We need not reverse the dispositional
order.  (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 187; In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 385.).  We leave the issue of what to do if a tribe
asserts jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile
court. 

            The
orders under review are affirmed and the cause is remanded for compliance with
the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements

                                                NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

                                                TURNER,
P. J.

 

We concur:

 

 

            KRIEGLER,
J.

 

            O’NEILL, J.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*

 

 





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="">*               Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.








Description M.B., the mother of D.J., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300 and 361 dependency orders. The mother contends there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The Department of Children and Family Services agrees. We agree likewise. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Upon remittitur issuance, the juvenile court is to comply with the with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. We need not reverse the dispositional order. (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 187; In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 385.). We leave the issue of what to do if a tribe asserts jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile court.
The orders under review are affirmed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale