legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re D.J.
M.B., the mother of D.J., appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300 and 361 dependency orders. The mother contends there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and related California provisions. The Department of Children and Family Services agrees. We agree likewise. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472.) Upon remittitur issuance, the juvenile court is to comply with the with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and related state provisions. We need not reverse the dispositional order. (In re Veronica G. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 179, 187; In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 385.). We leave the issue of what to do if a tribe asserts jurisdiction over the child in the good hands of the juvenile court.
The orders under review are affirmed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements

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
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale