In re Savana G.
Filed 1/18/07 In re Savana G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
In re SAVANA G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEE ROY G., Defendant and Appellant. | F050566 (Super. Ct. No. 04CEJ300240)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Lee Roy G. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to Savana G.[1] An issue regarding the possible applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) arose late in the proceedings. Despite multiple continuances and further hearings to address the issue, appellant contends the court failed to assure compliance with ICWA's notice requirements. On review, we will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
As a newborn in October 2004, Savana G. suffered severe physical abuse at the hands of her mother. As a result, respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) detained Savana and her half-sister Jessica and initiated the underlying dependency proceedings. Appellant is Savana's alleged father; his brother is Jessica's alleged father. Both brothers were incarcerated for much, if not all, of the proceedings.
The Fresno County Superior Court subsequently exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, adjudged them dependents, and removed them from parental custody. Due to the severity of the harm Savana suffered and the alleged father status of appellant and his brother, the court denied reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children. Appellant did not challenge the court's decision by way of any writ petition. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).)
In anticipation of the section 366.26 hearing, the department prepared a report in which it recommended the court find Savana and her sister adoptable and order parental rights terminated.
On the original section 366.26 hearing date in October 2005, the court was in the midst of making its findings to terminate parental rights when appellant and the mother for the first time each claimed Indian heritage.[2] Relevant to this appeal, the mother's attorney reported â€
