In re Jorge P
Filed 5/15/06 In re Jorge P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 JORGE P., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B186337 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK37399) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH M., et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Doi, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Kimberly A. Knill for Defendant and Appellant Joseph M.
Karen B. Stalter for Defendant and Appellant P.G.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joseph M., alleged father of minor Jacqueline M., and mother P.G. appeal from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Both alleged father and mother contest the termination of their parental rights to Jacqueline, and mother additionally contests the termination of her rights to minors Jorge P. and Danielle M. Joseph also appeals from the court's order denying his section 388 petition seeking in part presumed father status and other relief. Mother argues, and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) agrees, that the order terminating her parental rights must be overturned and the matter remanded for notice to be given pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Joseph contests DCFS's failure to give him proper notice of the jurisdiction and disposition proceedings, and argues that the parent-child exception to termination of parental rights applies to him. We reverse the order terminating mother's parental rights and remand for compliance with ICWA, and we affirm the orders denying Joseph's section 388 petition and terminating his parental rights.
FACTS
In March 2004, DCFS filed a section 300 petition regarding mother's six children, Jorge P. (born 1992), Danielle M. (born 1994), Isaac M. (born 1996), Angeline M. (born 1998), Justine M. (born 1999), and Jacqueline M. (born 2003).[2] The petition alleged that mother placed Justine and Jacqueline in danger by allowing a known gang member into her home, where there was a loaded gun, that she was arrested on a probation violation, and that she uses marijuana.
The DCFS detention report stated that with two of the six children present, the gang member â€
