In re Gabriel E

Filed 8/15/06 In re Gabriel E. Ca4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Andrea St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

Defendant and Appellant Deidre A. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights at to four of her six children: ten-year-old D.W.,^[1] four-year-old Gabriel E., three-year-old J.E., and two-year-old L.E.^[2] She contends the juvenile court erred by failing to ensure that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) adequately complied with the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We agree that the notice provisions of the ICWA were not adequately complied with and will remand the matter for that limited purpose.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are as follows: This case originally began in Riverside County in April 2004 when DPSS received a referral that Mother was abusing illicit drugs and neglecting her six children. The children were taken into protective custody and placed in different homes. Gabriel, J.E., and L.E. were placed together. On June 3, 2004, the court found prima facie evidence that the children came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g).^[3]

At the time of removal, Mother informed the social worker that her children had three different fathers. D.W.'s father had passed away; the father of A.W. and J.W. was incarcerated; and the father of Gabriel, J.E. and L.E. (Father) was also incarcerated.

Mother stated that neither she nor any member of her immediate family had Native American ancestry. However, Father reported that he might be part Pascua Yaqui Indian through his paternal grandmother, B.C. The social worker then contacted B.C., who confirmed Father's assertion; however, she stated that she was not registered. In response, the social worker mailed certified letters to the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Counsel (Tribe), the Secretary of the Interior Department, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The court's file does not contain any of these letters or notices or proof of service regarding the letters or notices.

In the jurisdictional/dispositional report dated July 6, 2004, the social worker informed the court: â€