In re Jessica G.
Filed 1/18/07 In re Jessica 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 JESSICA G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR G., Defendant and Appellant. | F050565 (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.
Mario de Solenni, 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-
Arthur G. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to Jessica 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 and, 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
In October 2004, respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) discovered that Jessica's mother had physically abused her newborn daughter, Savana G. As a result, the department detained Jessica as well as her half-sister Savana and initiated the underlying dependency proceedings. Appellant is Jessica's alleged father; his brother is Savana'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 Jessica 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€
