In re Joshua M.
Filed 7/31/06 In re Joshua M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 JOSHUA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID M., Defendant and Appellant. |
C051058
(Super. Ct. No. JD222346)
|
David M. (appellant), the father of Joshua M. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile court's orders adjudging the minor a dependent child of the court and removing the minor from parental custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 360, subd. (d), 395.) Appellant contends the dispositional order of removal must be reversed because the court and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Agreeing with appellant's claim, we reverse conditionally to permit compliance with ICWA and remand for notice to two Indian tribes.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dependency proceedings on behalf of the minor in this case began in May 2005. DHHS received information suggesting the minor might have Blackfeet, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Iroquois Indian tribal heritage. Thereafter, DHHS sent notice of the dependency proceedings to Blackfeet Tribe, three Cherokee tribes, three Choctaw tribes, six Iroquois tribes, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The social worker's report noted ICWA might apply.
One of the six Iroquois tribes responding to DHHS included in its response a list of additional affiliated tribes. That list included Tonawanda Band of Senecas, which DHHS had not notified, and Cayuga Nation and Seneca Nation of Indians, both of which DHHS had notified. However, another tribe, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, which is on a list maintained by BIA of Indian tribal entities (68 Fed.Reg. 68180, 68182 (Dec. 5, 2003)), was not in the letter sent by the tribe to DHHS and had not been notified of the proceedings by DHHS.
At the October 17, 2005, hearing that is the subject of this appeal, the juvenile court asked DHHS if it had notified all of the tribal entities on the list provided by the Iroquois tribe. DHHS replied that it had. The court then ruled DHHS had complied with the notice requirements of ICWA.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends DHHS erred by failing to send notice of the dependency proceedings to two tribes. We agree.
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.) An â€
