Filed 5/23/06 In re Emmanuel Y. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
In re EMMANUEL Y., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIMBERLY Y., Defendant and Appellant. | C050849 (Super. Ct. No. JD221051) |
Appellant Kimberly Y., the mother of Emmanuel Y. (minor), appeals from the order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She claims the juvenile court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm the order terminating parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The minor was born to appellant in August 2004. On September 2, 2004, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition to declare the minor a dependent child of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged the parents have an extensive history with Children's Protective Services, including losing parental rights over two of their children, Elijah and Ezekiel, and appellant's two children by another father having been adopted. The petition also alleged the parents had a history of domestic violence, medical neglect, homelessness, and an inability to follow through with services.
When the minor was taken into protective custody, appellant told the social worker she had Indian heritage, but she was not sure what tribe. The initial hearing report indicated appellant may have Chippewa and Apache heritage, and the father may also have Native American heritage. A DHHS paralegal made inquiries into the minor's possible Indian background. The paternal grandmother claimed Navajo heritage through her maternal great grandmother. She provided what family history she had, and said neither she nor the minor's father were members of a tribe. The paternal grandfather told the paralegal he had no Indian heritage. Appellant claimed her father had Native American ancestry, but could not name her paternal grandparents. She said the maternal grandmother had no Indian ancestry. Appellant gave her father's name and phone number to the paralegal, but appellant's father never responded to the paralegal's messages. DHHS sent by certified mail notice of involuntary child custody proceedings (form SOC 319) and a request for confirmation of the minor's status as an Indian (form SOC 318) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), three Navajo tribes, 18 Chippewa tribes, and nine Apache tribes. The form 318 included the names, birthdates, and birthplaces, and possible tribal affiliation of the minor, both parents, the grandparents with possible Indian heritage, and one great grandparent.
The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on October 7, 2004. The petition was sustained, and the minor was placed with appellant under numerous conditions. The referee held that while return receipts for three tribes were not filed, the ICWA issue was moot because the minor was returned to appellant. The referee noted the DHHS' â€
