In re Vanessa O.
Filed 7/26/06 In re Vanessa O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 VANESSA O. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACQUE L., Defendant and Appellant. | E039533 (Super. Ct. Nos. J193936 - J193938) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Deborah A. Daniel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed with directions.
Susan Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Linda M. Fabian for Minors.
Appellant Jacque L. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights as to her children, V., J., and A. (the children). She argues that the order should be reversed because the Department of Children's Services (DCS) failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Respondent correctly concedes.[1]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2004, DCS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300[2] petition on behalf of the children, alleging that the children were at risk of suffering harm because of the domestic violence and substance abuse histories of mother and father.[3]
(§ 300, subd. (b).) At that time, V. was one month old, J. was one year old, and A. was two years old.
In the March 22, 2004, detention report, the social worker stated that ICWA did not apply since mother denied any maternal or paternal Indian heritage. However, at the detention hearing, the court ordered mother to reveal membership in any Indian tribe. The next day, the social worker sent formal notices of the proceedings to the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes (the tribes) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
At a pretrial settlement conference on May 7, 2004, the court found that the ICWA notice requirement had been satisfied and asked that the notices be filed with the court. Copies of the notices and return receipts from the BIA and the tribes were filed with the court.
In the six-month status review report, dated November 8, 2004, the social worker stated that ICWA did not apply. The social worker further recommended that the court set a section 366.26 hearing to set a permanent plan of adoption for the children. However, in an addendum report, the social worker recommended that the court extend reunification services for six months since mother was making substantial progress in a substance abuse treatment program. At the six-month hearing, DCS counsel advised the court that DCS needed to â€
