-

In re Jasmine D.

Filed 8/2/06 In re Jasmine D. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Frank Dougherty, Judge.

Carolyn S. Hurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ruben E. Castillo, County Counsel, and James B. Tarhalla, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Charlene M. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter, Jasmine D.^[1] Appellant contends the court erred at an earlier stage of the proceedings when it determined that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply to these proceedings. On review, we will affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Despite many months of voluntary family maintenance services, respondent Merced County Human Services Agency (the agency) detained 14-month-old Jasmine D. in July 2004 due to appellant's severe neglect of the child. Although appellant was only 17 years old, she already had a chronic and untreated substance abuse problem, which significantly impaired her ability to provide care for Jasmine. The child's father was incarcerated in state prison. Therefore, the agency initiated the underlying dependency proceedings.

At the father's first appearance in these proceedings, the Merced County Superior Court asked if he had any Native American Indian heritage. Although the father initially replied â€