In re I.B.
Filed 5/31/06 In re I.B. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re I.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L. W., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A110532 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD04-3031) |
In this dependency matter, L. W. (mother) and Tony B. (father) timely appeal from June 3, 2005 orders terminating their parental rights with respect to their daughter I.B. at the conclusion of a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] The mother and father both contend the juvenile court failed to inquire about I.B.'s possible Native American heritage and thus to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. Because the appellate record does not show the City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services (Department) or the juvenile court fulfilled their duty to inquire regarding I.B.'s Indian child status, we reverse and remand with directions.
BACKGROUND
I. General Background.
The mother and father each have a long history of drug abuse and criminal records dating back to the 1980's. In February 2004, the Department removed I.B. from the mother's care after both the mother and I.B. had tested positive for cocaine and methadone when I.B. was born.
The mother and father's older child, J.B., also tested positive for cocaine and methadone at his birth on August 3, 2001. The mother failed to recover from drug addiction during J.B.'s dependency. In separate proceedings, the juvenile court removed J.B. from the mother's care. Neither the mother nor the father completed reunification with J.B.
At the April 23, 2004 disposition hearing regarding I.B., the juvenile court bypassed both parents' reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing based on the parents' â€
