Maria G. v. LA Super. Ct.
Filed 6/16/06 Maria G. v. LA Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| MARIA G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B189620 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK60964) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Writ petition pursuant to rule 38.1 of the California Rules of Court. Jacqueline Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Miran Kim for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
Estaire Press for the Minor.
Petitioner Maria G. (mother) is the mother of D.R., a one-year-old boy who was declared a dependent of the juvenile court. The juvenile court denied mother and D.R.'s father (who has not petitioned for relief) reunification services after finding that D.R. had suffered severe physical abuse at their hands, and that D.R. would not benefit from such services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subds. (b)(5) & (b)(6).)[1] The court then scheduled a hearing for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan for D.R. (§ 366.26.)
Mother filed a writ petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1) challenging the juvenile court's decision. She claims (1) reunifications services may not be denied under subdivision (b)(5) because father alone inflicted the physical abuse on D.R., (2) substantial evidence does not support the decision to deny her reunification services under subdivision (b)(6), and (3) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order because the notices issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) were inadequate.
Both the Department and D.R. oppose the granting of relief.
We conclude that mother's contentions lack merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
This matter first came to the Department's attention in early August 2005, when D.R. was two months old. A social worker at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles referred the matter to the Department after mother failed to bring D.R. in for follow-up care in connection with three skull fractures D.R. had sustained. When mother first brought D.R. to the hospital, she claimed she and D.R. were injured when she fell down a flight of stairs. Mother also reported that D.R. had sustained a skull injury at birth when his head struck a stirrup.[2] A hospital social worker advised mother and her boyfriend--D.R.'s father, T.R. (father)--that the matter would have to be referred to the Department if the medical team was unable to determine that D.R.'s injuries were consistent with their (the parents') explanations.
After mother failed to bring D.R. in for follow-up care, a hospital social worker spoke to her by phone on several occasions. Mother stated that she did not intend to bring D.R. to the hospital because she had moved to the South Bay. Mother claimed D.R. would be seen by a new doctor, whom she described as â€
