In re Jesse B.
Filed 5/30/06 In re Jesse B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 JESSE B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMIE B. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E039118 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ-107224) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Tina P.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jamie B.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
I
INTRODUCTION
Tina P. (mother) and Jamie B. (father) appeal an order terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] with regard to their children, Jesse B. and Cynthia P.[2] Mother challenges the adequacy of the section 366.21 adoption assessment as reported by the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). Father joins in mother's argument and also contends reversal is required for noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We find no merit to mother's argument; however, we agree the juvenile court erred by failing to ensure that notice was given in accordance with the ICWA and reverse the order on that basis.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[3]
Jesse, born in June 1999, and Cynthia, born in March 2001, were taken into protective custody on January 13, 2004. Ten days earlier, mother had abandoned them at the home of their maternal grandparents.[4] A juvenile dependency petition alleged, under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), (g) and (j), that mother, whose whereabouts were then unknown, was unable to adequately supervise or protect the children; that Cynthia had been sexually abused by mother's stepfather, for which he had been arrested in October 2003; that mother was aware of the abuse and had been instructed not to allow any unsupervised contact between them; and that she nonetheless left the child there.[5] Father was then residing in Washington State.
On April 7, 2004, the court found true the allegations of the petition as amended. The subdivision (g) count was stricken, and the subdivision (b) count was amended to include allegations of mother's substance abuse and domestic violence between the parents in the children's presence. The children were declared dependents of the court and placed in foster care. Reunification services were offered to mother. Counsel for father informed the court that his client did not want services and the court relieved counsel from his appointment.
A six-month review hearing was held on September 13, 2004. Neither parent was present. The children were in a foster home and were said to be bonding with their foster parents. Mother was to visit the children weekly; however, she missed about half of the visits. When she did visit, the visits went well. When she was unable to make a visit, she so informed the social worker in advance. Nonetheless, the court terminated mother's services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for January 11, 2005. Both parents were notified as to their right to file a writ petition; no petition was filed.
On January 11, 2005, the court authorized the social worker to look into another adoptive home and the matter was continued to March 8, 2005. On the continued date, the matter was again rescheduled, this time at the request of DPSS. On May 11, 2005, counsel was reappointed for father and the hearing was again continued at DPSS's request.
On July 25, 2005, the court ordered adoption as the permanent plan and scheduled a contested section 366.26 hearing for August 29, 2005. The hearing was continued once more and ultimately proceeded on September 27, 2005. Father did not appear; however, mother was present, and on her behalf her attorney asked the court not to terminate parental rights, but instead to establish a legal guardianship. After informing mother that she should be very grateful that her children are now in a â€
