In re Caitlyn V.
Filed 4/21/06 In re Caitlyn V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| In re CAITLYN V., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B185162 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK59167) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR V., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sheri S. Sobel, Referee. Reversed and remanded.
Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Father Oscar V. appeals from the trial court's order removing his two children from his care. He asserts there was insufficient evidence to support the order, and that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the terms of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA).) We reverse the order and remand the case for compliance with ICWA.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In May 2005, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[1] to have 18-month-old Caitlyn and 4-month-old Micah declared dependent children. The petition, as amended and sustained, alleged that at the time of Micah's birth he and mother both tested positive for methamphetamine, that mother was a current user of amphetamine, that father failed to take action to protect the child, and that the parents had signed a voluntary family maintenance contract in which they agreed to stay free from drugs, remain sober, participate in parent education, random drug testing, and substance abuse rehabilitation programs, but they failed to comply with the contract, endangering the children's physical and emotional health, safety and well-being. The children were detained with their paternal grandmother. Both parents were ordered to take parenting classes, mother was ordered to participate in drug treatment and random testing, and father was to attend Al-Anon twice a week.
At the June 23, 2005 disposition hearing, the court removed the children from mother's custody, and ordered them placed with father. Father indicated he planned to move into his mother's home, where the children were living, but he was concerned that this was â€
