In re S.O.
Filed 8/2/06 In re S.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 S.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.G., Defendant and Appellant. | E038795 (Super.Ct.No. J-108524) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert Padia, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jacquelyn E. Gentry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Mother appeals from the juvenile dependency court's order entered at a review hearing on August 9, 2005, under Welfare and Institutions section 362.4,[1] in which the court awarded joint custody of S.O. to the child's biological parents (mother and father), with physical custody awarded to father. At the time, S.O. was four years old. Mother contends we must reverse the court's custody order awarding physical custody to father because the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)
We conclude the ICWA notice provisions do not apply because DPSS did not place S.O. in foster care or recommend she be placed in foster care. Rather, upon removing S.O. from mother's custody, DPSS immediately placed S.O. with her biological father. The custody order is thus affirmed.
1. Factual and Procedural Background
This is mother's second appeal in this case. The general facts are primarily taken from her previous appeal, case No. E037681.
Mother has two daughters, S.O., who is almost six years old, and H.G., who is almost two. Mother and S.O.'s father, referred to in this appeal as â€
