In re T.P.
Filed 8/22/06 In re T.P. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| In re T.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEVI P., Defendant and Appellant. | A112260 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD01-3295) |
I. INTRODUCTION
T.P. (minor) is the daughter of appellant Levi P. (Father) and Karen B. (Mother). In 2001, minor and her three half-sisters were the subjects of separate juvenile dependency petitions filed by the San Francisco Department of Human Services (Department). Upon investigation, the Department concluded that Mother's drug abuse rendered her incapable of caring for her children and that tension between Father and Mother and minor's half-sisters had created a dangerous environment for minor. At the initial hearing, the juvenile court detained minor and placed her in Father's care. In response to concerns voiced by the Department, the court expressly ordered Father not to take minor from the Bay Area.
Despite the juvenile court's order, Father left the state with minor prior to the next scheduled hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile court made jurisdictional findings in Father's absence, but it deferred disposition. Minor was not located until over four years later, when she was returned to the Bay Area. Father followed. After further hearings, the juvenile court made new jurisdictional findings and entered a disposition, placing minor in Father's custody.
Father challenges the court's jurisdictional findings and contends that the court's order must be reversed for failure to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We conclude that Father forfeited his right to appeal the court's jurisdictional findings by violating the order not to remove minor, but we reverse the juvenile court's dispositional order and remand because there is no evidence of ICWA compliance.
II. BACKGROUND
The Department filed a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 300, subsection (b) with respect to minor, then two years old, on July 12, 2001. The petition contained a number of allegations of deficient care against Mother, including that she â€
