In re N.M.
Filed 9/6/06 In re N.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re N.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B188500 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 00574) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THERESA M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven L. Berman, Juvenile Court Referee. Reversed and remanded with directions.
M. Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Theresa M.
Janice A. Jenkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sasha R.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Theresa M. (mother) and Sasha R. (father) appeal the orders that terminated their parental rights to their sons N.M. and I.R., pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] N.M. was born in 2000. I.R. was born in 2002. Mother and father are not married. Father is the children's presumed father. Mother and father contend that (1) the juvenile court lacked sufficient evidence that N.M. and I.R. were likely to be adopted, and (2) there were deficiencies in compliance with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA).
We reject appellants' first issue. Respondent concedes a deficiency in ICWA notice as to one Native American tribe. We order a limited reversal for compliance with ICWA, and reinstatement of the order terminating parental rights if ICWA compliance does not indicate Native American heritage.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Facts from Our Previous Opinion
In a previous nonpublished opinion, In re N.M. (July 19, 2005, B179269), we rejected mother's challenge to dependency court orders of November 2004, which denied her family reunification services and reduced the amount of her visits with N.M. and I.R. We quote the summary of facts in that opinion.
â€
