In re Michael R.
Filed 8/11/06 In re Michael R. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re MICHAEL R., a Minor. |
|
| COLLETTE K., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVIS C., Objector and Appellant. |
F049522
(Super. Ct. No. S1501-AT-2266)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Frank A. Hoover, Judge.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In this appeal, we are asked to review a juvenile court order declaring a minor child free and clear from his father's custody and control. (Fam. Code, §§ 7820, 7822.) The father contends the juvenile court failed to guarantee compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)[1] We agree and will remand to ensure the minor's connection to his potential Indian heritage is not severed.
BACKGROUND[2]
Travis C. (Father) and Collette K. (Mother) are the biological parents of Michael R. (Michael). Father and Mother were never married and they separated about the time of Michael's birth in September 1998. Father was subsequently incarcerated several times on various conspiracy and narcotic offenses. According to Mother, Father last saw Michael for about an hour on December 29, 2002.
In August 2004, Mother married another man, who subsequently sought to adopt Michael. Father did not consent to the adoption, so Mother petitioned the juvenile court to terminate Father's parental rights. The juvenile court appointed counsel for Father at his request.
Kern County Family Court Services Investigator Kristi Embry interviewed Father from prison by telephone in August 2005. Father explained he did not want his relationship to end with Mother and he wanted to be a father to Michael. He never sought a formal custody agreement because he did not believe the court would look favorable on his parole status. He also stated he believed he has â€
