In re Markayla W.
Filed 4/13/06 In re Markayla W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)
----
| In re MARKAYLA W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LATEISHA O., Defendant and Appellant. | C050380
Super. Ct. Nos. JD220571 JD220572
|
Lateisha O. (appellant), the mother of Markayla W. and Marquell W. (minors), appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§§ 366.26, 395; further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant makes numerous claims of alleged prejudicial error, including a contention that Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the juvenile court violated notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Agreeing with appellant's ICWA claim only, we shall reverse and remand for proper notice.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2004, DHHS filed original juvenile dependency petitions pursuant to section 300 on behalf of two-month-old Markayla and 18-month-old Marquell. Those petitions alleged appellant was the victim of domestic violence at the hands of Mark W., Sr., the father of the minors. Each petition also alleged the minor might be of Indian ancestry.
DHHS sent notices of the dependency proceedings to the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Unfortunately, both the birthplace and birthdate of Mark W., Sr., were listed incorrectly on the notices. Based on the information provided, both the Blackfeet Tribe and BIA responded that the minors were not Indian children.
Until July 2005, the minors lived in the same foster home with another sibling, Brianaee. They visited with appellant, the minors' father, and two other siblings on a weekly basis. Those visits went well. Brianaee also visited with her father. The minors did well in foster care with no difficulties reported. The social worker noted that Brianaee was closely bonded with her siblings.
The juvenile court sustained the petitions as amended and adjudged the minors as dependent children. The court ruled the minors were not Indian children. The court also ordered DHHS to develop a sibling visitation plan to â€
