In re Ivan M;

Filed 5/30/06  In re Ivan M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Becky Dugan, Judge. 

Affirmed.

            Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Jacquelyn E. Gentry for minor.

            Appellant S.M. (father) appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1] order terminating his parental rights to his son, Ivan (born on March 31, 2004) (the child).  Father argues that:  1) the court and the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA); 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the child was likely to be adopted; and 3) the court's order denying further reunification services based on his mental disability, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2), violated his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  We affirm.^[2]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

            On April 23, 2004, a section 300 petition was filed on behalf of the child, alleging that he came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support).  The petition alleged that the child was at risk for suffering serious harm because his mother (mother) and father both suffered from schizophrenia.^[3]  With regard to father, the petition alleged that because he was on psychotropic medication and had a history of being hospitalized due to his mental health issues, he had a limited ability to provide the child with adequate care.

            The detention report stated that mother was released from the hospital with the child the day after he was born, on April 1, 2004.  The plan was for a paternal aunt to move in with mother and father and help care for the child.  However, after she moved in, the family had issues that could not be resolved, and mother and father wanted the aunt to leave.  She left on April 11, 2004, and the paternal grandfather, who also lived with them, volunteered to take care of the child.

            By April 21, 2004, the DPSS had received four calls with reports of neglect.  Mother was suffering from delusions, and father was incoherent due to his medication.  The grandfather was also unable to provide care for the child.  The child was removed from the home.

            Detention Hearing

            At the detention hearing, the court dismissed the section 300, subdivision (g) allegation, on motion of the DPSS.  The court found that the child came within section 300, subdivision (b) and detained him in foster care.  The court ordered visitation to be supervised by DPSS, and continued the matter to May 17, 2004.

            Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

            In a jurisdiction/disposition report dated May 17, 2004, the social worker reported that mother was told that her father may be Cherokee.  However, mother stated that her mother was addicted to drugs and was â€