In re Misty J.
Filed 3/21/06 In re Misty J. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re MISTY J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL J., Defendant and Appellant. | E039008 (Super.Ct.No. J194912) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cynthia Ludvigsen, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and W. Andrew Hartzell, Chief Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Defendant and Appellant Daniel J. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, Misty J. He contends the juvenile court erred by failing to ensure that notice was given in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We agree and will reverse and remand the matter.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are as follows: This case originally began in Riverside County in February 2004 when the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) received a referral that at birth Misty and her mother (Mother) had tested positive for amphetamines. Mother disappeared shortly after Misty's birth, and her whereabouts were unknown. The case was subsequently transferred to San Bernardino County in April 2004.
Father reported that he and Mother could be American Indian; however, he did not know what tribe. DPSS sent a notice of the proceedings to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In January 2005, after the case was transferred to the San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services (DCS), notice was again sent to the BIA. This notice included a letter notifying the BIA of the next court date. At the six-month review hearing on March 7, 2005, the social worker testified that she had called the BIA and confirmed they had received the paperwork. She was informed that there were â€
