Oscar V. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 2/21/07  Oscar V. v. Sup. Ct. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR

            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate.  Sheri Sobel, Judge.  Stay lifted, petition denied.

            Darold M. Shirwo for Petitioner.

            No appearance for Respondent.

            Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

_____________________________

            By petition for writ of mandate, father Oscar V. challenges the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing for his children.  He claims reasonable reunification services were not provided to assist him in finding adequate housing.  He also claims the court erroneously applied a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the clear and convincing evidence standard in its determination that returning the children to his care would create a substantial risk of danger.  We conclude the requested relief is not warranted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            Micah and Caitlyn V. were declared dependent children in June 2005 based on mother's use of amphetamines, father's failure to protect the children, and the parents' failure to comply with a voluntary family maintenance contract.  The children were initially placed with father, but in July 2005, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a supplemental petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 387^[1] to remove the children from father's care.  The court sustained the petition based on father's failure to reside in DCFS-approved housing and his failure to recognize that mother has a drug problem.  The court ordered DCFS to assist father in finding appropriate housing.

            Father filed a timely appeal from that order.  In case No. B185162, filed April 21, 2006, we found the petition was properly sustained.  However, DCFS failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq., (ICWA)).  For that reason, we reversed the order and remanded the cause for compliance with ICWA.  According to our disposition, â€