Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
James E. Herman, Judge Superior Court County No. J-1251614 of Santa Barbara.
Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
A.E. appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring that her daughter A. is adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 28, 2006, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services ("CWS") filed a petition on behalf of five-year-old A. CWS alleged that the child was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a high-speed police chase. When the driver stopped the vehicle, she attempted to use the child as a shield against police officers. Police officers arrested the woman and discovered drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle. CWS could not locate A.'s father, and her mother, A.E., was incarcerated. (§ 300, subds. (b) [failure to protect], (g) [no provision for support].)
The juvenile court ordered A. detained and placed in the custody of her paternal aunt. On March 5, 2007, the court sustained the allegations of the dependency petition, continued A. in the care of her paternal aunt, and ordered CWS to provide family reunification services to A.E.
The juvenile court did not order CWS to provide reunification services to A.'s father. He is not a party to this appeal.
The family reunification services plan required A.E. to participate in substance abuse treatment, test frequently for drug use, attend parent education classes, and obtain counseling, among other things. A.E. did not substantially comply with the requirements of the reunification services plan and was frequently incarcerated during the dependency. At the 12-month review hearing on December 17, 2007, the juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (§ 366.26.)
Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) ("ICWA")
At the November 29, 2006, detention hearing, a relative informed the juvenile court that A. had Indian heritage through her paternal great-grandmother, but the tribe was unknown. The court then ordered CWS to send notice (JV-135) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. CWS subsequently sent notice, stating the name of A.'s great-grandmother and her date and place of birth. CWS later received a return postal receipt for the notice.
On January 8, 2007, A.'s father appeared in the proceedings and filed form JV-130, indicating that he had Navajo Indian heritage. In her form, A.E. stated that she had no Indian ancestry. CWS then sent form JV-135 to three Navajo Indian tribes, but it omitted the name of A.'s great-grandmother. CWS received return postal receipts from the three tribes. On January 31, 2007, the Navajo Nation responded that it could not verify A.'s eligibility for services or for enrollment as a tribal member.
On March 17, 2008, the juvenile court held a permanent plan hearing and received evidence of CWS reports and the testimony of A.E. concerning her recent efforts at drug rehabilitation. The court concluded that CWS complied with the notice provisions of ICWA, and that A. is not an Indian child. It also concluded by clear and convincing evidence that A. is likely to be adopted. It then terminated parental rights.
Post-order ICWA Notices and Proceedings
Following termination of parental rights, CWS interviewed A.'s paternal aunt and determined that the only Navajo Indian heritage was from the child's great-grandmother. The aunt gave a date of birth, but had no additional information. Moreover, she did not know of any person who would have information regarding the great-grandmother.
CWS then mailed additional notices to A.'s father, the parents' attorneys, the Navajo Indian tribes, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs - Navajo Office. The notices stated the information available regarding the great-grandmother. CWS received return postal receipts from the Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In response, CWS received letters from the Navajo Indian tribes stating that they could not verify the child's enrollment. On July 24, 2008, the juvenile court again determined that the ICWA did not apply to A.
A.E. appeals and contends that the juvenile court did not ensure compliance with ICWA notice requirements. (In re Nikki R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 852 ["It is a trial court function to receive evidence of [CWS's] notice efforts and to determine if they measure up to ICWA standards"].)
DISCUSSION
A.E. asserts that the juvenile court did not confirm that CWS obtained sufficient information from family members regarding possible Indian ancestry. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); In re C.D. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 214, 225 [burden upon child welfare agency to inquire and obtain information regarding possible Indian heritage].) She also points out that the JV-135 form initially sent to the three Navajo Indian tribes omitted the name and birthdate of A.'s great-grandmother.
The juvenile court properly determined that CWS satisfied the notice requirements of ICWA and that A. is not an Indian child pursuant to the Act. In post-order proceedings, CWS provided proper notice to the Navajo Indian tribes and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding A.'s great-grandmother. (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [summarizing ICWA notice requirements and contents of form].) CWS obtained the limited information available by interviewing A.'s paternal aunt. She stated that she did not have additional information nor did she know of anyone who would have such information. CWS then filed the ICWA notice, return postal receipts, and tribal responses with the juvenile court. (Ibid.) The notice efforts here measure up to ICWA standards.
The order is affirmed.
We concur: COFFEE, J., PERREN, J.