In re Kaylah C.

Filed 4/25/06 In re Kaylah C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)

----

At a six-month review hearing held on August 31, 2005, the juvenile court denied the request of Rose K. (appellant), the mother of Kaylah (the minor), to terminate jurisdiction over the minor or, in the alternative, to place the minor in appellant's care.^[1] Appellant appeals from the orders of the juvenile court at the six-month hearing. We will reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

Appellant previously appealed from the jurisdictional order, challenging the sufficiency of the dependency petition, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. (See In re Kaylah C. (Feb. 14, 2006, C050040) [nonpub. opn.] at pp. 1-2 (Kaylah I).) Appellant also argued that the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. section 1901 et seq. (Id. at p. 2.) This court rejected appellant's challenge to the adequacy of the petition and to the sufficiency of evidence to support the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. However, we conditionally reversed the orders and remanded the matter for compliance with ICWA's notice requirements. (Id. at p. 26.)

We dispense with a recitation of the underlying facts, as they are unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal. Our review of the record from the dispositional hearing to the six-month review hearing has not disclosed any attempt by DHHS to comply with ICWA requirements.

Appellant's present appeal raises the same issues that she raised in her appeal from the dispositional order. She merely incorporates, by reference, her arguments in the prior appeal. The only new point she raises is her contention that DHHS's failure to give adequate notice under ICWA is a continuing error.

At a six-month hearing, the juvenile court determines whether returning the minor to the parents would constitute a substantial risk to the minor, and may order whatever additional services the court deems necessary for reunification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21.) Attacks on the sufficiency of the petition or the jurisdictional and dispositional findings raise issues not present at the six-month review hearing. These challenges to the dispositional order must be raised in an appeal from that order. â€