In re Stephanie M.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re STEPHANIE M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B191657 ( Super. |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREA M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Debra Losnick, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to
Reversed and remanded in part, otherwise affirmed.
Jill Regal, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Andrea M.
Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Erik V.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Tracey Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Erik V. (Father) and Andrea M. (Mother) appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights to Stephanie, Justin, and Adam, three of their four children.[1] Respondent concedes that the juvenile court erred in not requiring the Department of Childrens Services (the Department) to send appropriate notice to the Sioux tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; In re Samuel P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1439(f)(5)). The Department does not oppose remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the notice requirements. (In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 386.) Two issues raised by Mother and Father remain: 1) whether a bonding study should have been ordered and 2) whether the juvenile court erred in finding that the section Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(a), applied.[2] We find no error in those decisions and therefore shall remand only for proper notice under ICWA.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
This is not Mother and Father's first contact with the Department or with this particular bench officer, who had supervised four of Mother's other children. Moreover, Justin and Stephanie received dependency services between November 1998 and October 2000. During part of that time, Mother received voluntary services from the Department, and the three older siblings not involved in this appeal were dependents of the court due to Mother's substance abuse. Justin was born in 2000 with a positive toxicology screen for methamphetamine.
There was an inconclusive child abuse investigation in May 2003 for general neglect and substantiated allegations in March 2004. Mother, Father, and their house mates all had â€
