In re E.R.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re E.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHIRLEY R., Defendant and Appellant. | C053238, C053725 (Super. |
Shirley R., mother of the minor, appeals from orders granting her Marsden[1] motion and continuing the selection and implementation hearing and, in a separate appeal, from orders terminating her parental rights[2] (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26 [further undesignated statutory references are to this code]). At appellant's request we granted consolidation of case No. C053238 and case No. C053725 because the identical issue was raised in both cases. In both cases, appellant contends reversal is required because the court and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We affirm.
FACTS
The newborn minor was removed from appellant's custody in January 2006 based upon appellant's history of substance abuse. Appellant had lost parental rights as to five of the minor's six half-siblings. At the detention hearing she informed the court that she might have Indian ancestry but had no further information and was unable to identify a tribe. The court ordered DHHS to send notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and appellant to fill out a supplemental questionnaire.
According to a declaration filed by the paralegal responsible for ICWA matters, she had difficulty finding appellant, who was in custody, to provide her the Ancestry Questionnaire. Once appellant was located, the documents were sent to her at the Sacramento County Main Jail. In late January, the social worker who visited appellant in custody, confirmed that appellant had received the documents and that she had not completed the questionnaire. Appellant gave the social worker some family heritage information but did not identify a tribe. Accordingly, the notice to the BIA contained only the mother's and the maternal grandmother's names.
The jurisdiction/disposition report stated that none of the minor's half-siblings had any Indian ancestry. The report further stated that appellant said she was â€
