In re T.S.

 

 

 

Filed 1/26/07  In re
T.S. CA4/2

 

 

 

NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

 

 

 

In re T.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,               Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   S.L.,               Defendant and Appellant.	E040713               (Super.Ct.No. INJ016481)               OPINION

 

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside
County.  Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Konrad S. Lee, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Anna M. Deckert, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Janette Freeman
Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

            S.L.^[1] (hereafter father)
appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his then
nine-year-old daughter, T.S.  The only issue in this appeal is whether that
order should be reversed because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate
inquiry to determine whether father has Indian ancestry and as a result failed
to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (hereafter ICWA;
25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).  We conclude the trial court conducted an adequate
inquiry.  Therefore we will affirm.

FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            Riverside County Child
Protective Services detained T.S. and her three half siblings on November 8, 2004, after mother reported to a social worker that she was using
methamphetamine and could not handle her children.  Mother also reported that
father is the biological father of T.S. although father has never played a role
in the child's life and has had only one contact with T.S.  The trial court
appointed counsel for father at the detention hearing on November 10, 2004, although father did not appear at that or any other hearing in this matter because
he is in prison.^[2] 
Because father was incarcerated and would not be released from prison until
April 2009, the trial court denied reunification services to him at the December 7, 2004, jurisdiction hearing.  At a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on April 12, 2006, the trial court terminated father's parental rights to T.S.

DISCUSSION

            Father's only
contention in this appeal is that the Department of Public Social
Services (DPSS) did not comply with the trial court's directive to inquire
whether father has any Native American ancestry.  Absent such inquiry, father
contends that the trial court's finding that the ICWA does not apply is not
supported by the evidence in this case.  We disagree.

The dependency
petition was filed on November 10, 2004.  The boxes on the petition pertinent
to tribal membership and Indian ancestry are not checked.  In the report
prepared for the detention hearing on November 12, 2004, the social worker
stated that the ICWA might apply because the social worker was unable to obtain
information from the mother regarding Native American ancestry.  At the
detention hearing, the trial court found that the ICWA does not apply to mother
but that the court and DPSS will have to inquire as to father because he was
not present in court.^[3]

            In the report prepared
for the combined jurisdiction and
disposition hearing on December 7, 2004, the social worker stated, â€