legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Jennifer C.
In this consolidated appeal, appellant Janice G. (mother) challenges several juvenile court orders. First, she objects to the January 30, 2006, order, designating a plan of legal guardianship for her daughter, Jennifer C. (Jennifer), on the grounds that (1) the juvenile court did not appoint a guardian at the time it designated the plan of guardianship; (2) the juvenile court stayed the guardianship order, in excess of its jurisdiction; and (3) substantial evidence failed to support the order for the plan of legal guardianship. Mother also asserts that the juvenile courts orders should be reversed because respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to provide proper notice as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
In her subsequently filed notice of appeal, mother contends that the juvenile courts July 31, 2006, and August 17, 2006, orders designating a plan of guardianship and implementing that plan should be reversed.
To the extent mother attacks the juvenile courts order designating a plan of legal guardianship and then staying that plan, her appeal is moot. On January 30, 2006, the juvenile court merely designated a plan of legal guardianship for Jennifer; it did not order a guardianship at that time. However, an order of guardianship was put in place by August 17, 2006, when grandmothers letters of guardianship were filed. Thus, we must address mothers challenge to that order, namely that DCFS did not undertake a proper investigation of the guardians home. We are not convinced. Substantial evidence indicates that a proper investigation was completed.
As for mothers complaint that DCFS did not comply with ICWAs notification requirements, DCFS concedes in its respondents brief that notice was deficient. Those deficiencies, however, do not compel reversal of the juvenile courts orders. Rather, pursuant to In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, this matter is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing DCFS to provide proper ICWA notice.
Accordingly, Court affirm the juvenile courts orders and remand the matter with directions to the juvenile court to direct DCFS to provide notice as required by the ICWA and California law and then determine whether the ICWA applies.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale