In re Victor A.
Filed 8/15/06 In re Victor A. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re VICTOR A. and SIERRA A., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIE A., Defendant and Appellant. | G036520 (Super. Ct. Nos. J434301, DP009726) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed.
Lori A. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
Marie A. appeals from an order that awarded Victor A., her husband, physical custody of the couple's two minor children, set a visitation schedule for Marie, and terminated this dependency proceeding. Marie argues she should have been awarded physical custody of one of the children, Sierra A., and if not, at least more liberal visitation than was ordered. She also argues the court failed to give notice required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). We disagree and affirm.
* * *
This case has a long history. The first of three dependency petitions involving Victor, junior (who goes by the name of Beau) was sustained in 1996. Beau was returned to Marie's custody in 1998, but not for long. In 1999, a supplemental petition was sustained and Beau was again removed from Marie. The full details of these petitions, and the conduct involved, are set out in a prior opinion. There, we held it was error to offer Marie further reunification services, and we ordered that a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to terminate services and set a selection and implementation hearing. (Victor A. v. Superior Court, Oct. 28, 1999, G025890 [nonpub. opn.].)
In early 2000, Marie filed a changed circumstances petition that was heard in conjunction with the selection and implementation hearing. The juvenile court found Marie had made significant changes in the circumstances that led to dependency, and again returned Beau to her custody. Subsequently, jurisdiction was terminated, and an exit order granted Marie and Victor joint legal custody of Beau, with sole physical custody to Marie.
The matter before us dates to 2004. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) detained both Beau and Sierra (born in 2000), and it filed a dependency petition that alleged failure to protect, failure to provide regular care, and inability to provide regular care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).[1])
The juvenile court sustained the petition in March 2004. It found Marie had voluntarily entered a psychiatric hospital, she had unresolved psychiatric issues and an unresolved history of drug abuse dating to 1996, and she had allowed Sierra's teeth to become so decayed that some had to be removed. Victor was not living with Marie. The court found he had a history of drug abuse and domestic violence. It also found the parents had engaged in domestic violence in front of the children when they were together, and Victor had failed to protect the children from Marie's neglect. Family maintenance services were ordered.
In June 2004, following a disposition hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from Marie's custody and placed them with Victor. The children were already in Victor's care, having been released to him back in March under a conditional release to intensive supervision program. The assigned social worker testified they were doing â€
