In re B.L.
Filed 7/18/06 In re B.L. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| In re B. L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LATASHA L., Defendant and Appellant. | C052301
(Super. Ct. No. JD220539)
|
Latasha L., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant contends, and respondent concedes, notice to the Indian tribes did not comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) After review of the record, we accept respondent's concession and reverse and remand for compliance with the ICWA.
FACTS
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a non-detention petition on the newborn minor in May 2004, based on domestic violence and the death of one of the minor's siblings which resulted in removal of her other siblings. Both parents claimed Indian heritage, listing the Cherokee, Choctaw and Mohawk tribes, and notices were mailed to the three Cherokee tribes, the three Choctaw tribes, a Seneca tribe and the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe in June 2004. However, the notice sent to the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe was not sent to the address for service of process listed in the Federal Register at the time.[1] Signed return receipts were received from all the tribes except the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe.
Responses to the notices and inquiries of Indian status were received from all tribes except the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe. The response from the Cherokee Nation addressed the status of both the minor and her two siblings, who were removed in the earlier proceeding, and contained information on relatives which was not included in the notices sent in this case.[2] The notices in this case omitted the names of the paternal grandmother, maternal grandfather and paternal great-grandparents although this information was known to DHHS.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found DHHS had complied with the notice requirements of the ICWA and there was no evidence that the minor was an Indian child. The court originally ordered an in-home dependency but the minor and her siblings were removed within a few months. Appellant failed to reunify with the minor and the juvenile court ultimately terminated her parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the court and DHHS failed to comply with the ICWA because there was no proof the Saint Regis Mohawk tribe was given notice of the proceedings and because the notices sent to the tribes failed to contain all known information on the minor's ancestry.
The ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912.) If, after the petition is filed, the court â€
