In re Kayleigh G.

Filed 8/30/06 In re Kayleigh G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Lassen)

----

In re KAYLEIGH G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LASSEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

SHAWNA C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C051516

(Super. Ct. Nos.

J4769, J4770, J4771, J4772)

Shawna C., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)^[1] Appellant contends reversal is required due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the early stages of the dependency proceedings and to the court's failure to comply with its duty to inquire about possible Indian heritage. While we reject appellant's first contention, we reverse and remand to permit the court to make the required Indian heritage inquiry.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2004, the Lassen County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition to remove the minors, Kayleigh (age five), M. (age two), Steve (18 months) and Lilli (two months), from parental custody. The petition alleged that the minors' father had inflicted serious physical injury and abuse on Lilli (§ 300, subds. (a), (e)) including a total of 19 rib fractures, some of which were healing, bruising on the abdomen and genital area and bilateral fractures of the femurs. The petition also alleged that the minors were at risk of suffering serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (b)) because appellant failed to protect them by leaving them in the father's care. The petition further alleged there was a substantial risk that Lilli's siblings would also be abused or neglected (§ 300, subd. (j)), reiterating the account of Lilli's severe injuries and adding a statement from Kayleigh that she knew Lilli's â€

Description	Mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. Appellant contends reversal is required due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the early stages of the dependency proceedings and to the court's failure to comply with its duty to inquire about possible Indian heritage. While court reject appellant's first contention, court reverse and remand to permit the court to make the required Indian heritage inquiry.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.