In re S.D
Filed 5/5/06 In re S.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 S.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.N., Defendant and Appellant. | E038804 (Super.Ct.No. J094897) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert M. Padia, Judge. Reversed.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jacquelyn E. Gentry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor S.D.
Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors An.M. and Aa.M.
D.N. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to S.D. (age four), and establishing a permanent plan of long-term foster care for An.M. (age nine) and Aa.M. (age six).[1] She contends that the court failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and that it abused its discretion by failing to order a sibling bonding study before ordering a permanent plan +of long-term foster care with a relative for the two older children and adoption by a nonrelative for S.D.
We find no abuse of discretion with respect to the requested bonding study. However, we will reverse the order terminating the mother's parental rights to S.D. and establishing a permanent plan of long-term foster care for An.M. and Aa.M., and order the court to comply with ICWA's notice requirements.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The issues raised in this appeal do not require an extensive discussion of the facts underlying the dependency and the decision to terminate parental rights. Additional facts will be stated as pertinent to the issues raised on appeal.
Stated briefly, the history of this case is as follows:
A dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[2] was filed as to all three children on June 18, 2003. The children came to the attention of the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) on June 17, 2003, when their mother was arrested for making criminal threats. The youngest child, S.D., had been living with her father, M.D. for about a month. The mother and the two older children were homeless and the mother had no means of providing for them; moreover, as a result of her arrest, she was incarcerated at the Banning Correctional Facility. The mother did not know where An.M.'s and Aa.M.'s fathers could be contacted.
At the detention hearing, all three children were ordered detained from their mother's custody. S.D. was placed with her father pending the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, reunification services were ordered for the mother and for S.D.'s father. S.D. was later removed from her father's home.
Neither parent made more than minimal progress toward completion of their case plans, and services were ultimately terminated. An.M. and Aa.M. were found to be mildly to moderately retarded, and there were conflicting opinions as to whether S.D. was developmentally delayed.[3] An.M. and Aa.M. were placed with a maternal great-aunt, while S.D. was placed in a nonrelative foster home.
At a section 366.26 hearing, the court ordered a â€
