Filed 12/22/05 Michelle M. v. Sup. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| MICHELLE M.,
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. | B187058
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 54543)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1). Albert J. Garcia, Temporary Judge. Petition denied in part and granted in part.
Robert Granieri for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest, Department of Children and Family Services.
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles and Devora Navera for Real Parties in Interest, the Children.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michelle M. is the mother of Malika (age 11) and Marshell (age 7), dependents of the juvenile court. Under California Rules of Court, rule 38.1, petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary relief seeking review of the juvenile court's October 17, 2005 ruling, which terminated family reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] We conclude the juvenile court did not err in terminating reunification services and substantial evidence supports its ruling. Nonetheless, because the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to give proper notice as required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), we direct the juvenile court to (1) vacate that part of its order scheduling a section 366.26 hearing, and (2) issue a new order requiring DCFS to give proper notice under the ICWA.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Petitioner is the mother of Malika and Marshell, and the grandmother and caretaker of Paris (age 7), Shamara (age 4), and Shonte (age 3). DCFS filed a petition in February 2004 alleging petitioner had physically abused Paris and Shamara. DCFS also alleged Marshell and Malika were sexually abused by a man named Earl, and that petitioner knew of the sexual abuse but failed to protect her daughters by letting Earl reside with the family and babysit the girls. Malika and Marshell were placed with their maternal uncle and aunt-in-law.
Investigation by DCFS revealed all four children had reported some form of physical abuse. Paris said he was â€
| Description | Dependency and reunification case. |
| Rating |
