In re Lorenzo C.

Filed 6/21/06 In re Lorenzo C. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from an order of the Juvenile Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. S. Patricia Spear, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Joseph D. Mackenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

________________________

SUMMARY

This case centers on a 13-year-old child who has experienced numerous medical problems. The juvenile court properly determined that his father's mental condition impaired his ability to provide necessary medical care for the child. As a result, the court correctly ordered the child's removal from his father's custody in order to ensure that he received the necessary medical attention and treatment. However, during the course of the proceedings, the court failed to comply with the tribal notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code^[1] section 300 on behalf of a 13-year-old child, Lorenzo C., alleging that his father neglected his medical needs due to the father's mental condition and substance abuse problems.

The child came to the DCFS attention when he was admitted to a hospital for an asthmatic condition that had been treated with medical marijuana oil. According to the hospital, the child also suffered from a skin condition (ichthyosis vulgaris) and a bilateral clubfoot (osteodeformity). DCFS' consultation with various health care providers revealed the child's father suffered from depression and schizophrenia and had failed to follow-up various recommendations for treatment of his son's various medical conditions.

When the father declined DCFS offer of voluntary family maintenance services, DCFS removed the child from the father's custody and placed him in foster care. The juvenile court later released the child to the father's girlfriend who also was the mother of the child's half-brother. Under the release order, the father was permitted to reside in the girlfriend's home.

Following a lengthy mediation process, the parties – DCFS, child, mother and father – agreed upon the language of an amended petition for presentation to the juvenile court. The court received social worker's reports into evidence without objection and without argument by the parties, including the father. The court sustained the petition after reviewing the amended petition and the social worker's reports, declared the child a dependent of the court and suitably placed him with the father's girlfriend. According to the disposition order, the father was permitted to reside in the girlfriend's home with the child. The court directed DCFS to provide family reunification services, and ordered the father to submit to random drug testing, to participate in a drug rehabilitation program if he tested positive for drugs, and to complete a parenting class. The father did not object to any of the dispositional orders. Based upon a report that the father and his girlfriend had relocated their residence to Orange County, the matter was transferred to that county's juvenile court.

DISCUSSION

I. The father waived his right to challenge the juvenile court's orders.

DCFS contends the father waived his right to challenge the juvenile court's orders by submitting on the social worker's recommendations. DCFS' position finds support in In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580. In that case, a parent's submission on the social worker's recommendation was deemed a parental endorsement of the court's findings and orders made in accordance with the recommendation. The father maintains that Richard K. is distinguishable in that he did not submit on the social worker's recommendation, but instead submitted to a jurisdictional determination based on a social worker's report. In that instance, a parent does not waive the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court's jurisdictional finding. (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552.)

In this case, the father's submission occurred at the conclusion of the parties' five-day effort to resolve the jurisdictional and dispositional issues through mediation. At that point, the parties, including the father, presented an amended dependency petition to the juvenile court. Father's counsel advised the court, â€