In re Shelly S

Filed 6/16/06 In re Shelly S. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Appellant Joseph S. is the father of 16-year-old Shelly S. and 15-year-old Stephanie S., who are both dependent children of the juvenile court. Father challenges the juvenile court's orders terminating reunification services and transferring the case to Butte County, where the children's mother resides. Father also argues the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). As we explain below, we reverse the termination and transfer orders for the sole purpose of enabling a remand to achieve proper compliance with the notice provisions of ICWA. Once there is proper notice, the termination and transfer orders will be reinstated if the Indian tribes do not wish to intervene in the dependency proceedings.

I. FACTS

Respondent Solano County Health and Social Services Department (Department) received a referral on Shelly, then 13, on January 12, 2004.[1] The Vacaville Police Department had picked up Shelly as a runaway, and had called Father at about 3:15 p.m. and asked him to come and get his daughter at the police station. Father did not arrive for several hours. During the delay Shelly told the police that Father had been physically and emotionally abusing her. The abuse included being regularly struck with a cable cord. Shelly had a mark on her neck that was consistent with being struck by a cord. The police placed Shelly in protective custody with the Department. After the placement, Father eventually arrived at the police station at approximately 8:00 p.m., saying he â€