From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re R. F.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Mar 10, 2008
No. B200484 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)

Opinion


In re R. F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY F., et al., Defendants and Appellants. B200484 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth Division March 10, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Ventura Super. Ct. No. J065611, Tari L. Cody, Judge

Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Bernadette A.

Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Randy F.

Noel A. Klebaum, County Counsel, Linda Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GILBERT, P.J.

Randy F. and Bernadette A. appeal the juvenile court order reinstating the termination of parental rights to their son R. We dismiss the appeal as moot. (In re Jessica K. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315-1316.)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In an unpublished decision, we reversed the order of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of Randy F. and Bernadette A. to their son, and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of determining the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") set forth in title 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. (In re R. F. (Oct. 23, 2006, B190118).) Our opinion ordered the juvenile court to reinstate the order terminating parental rights if it determined after proper inquiry and notice that the ICWA does not apply. (Ibid.)

Upon remand, the juvenile court held a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing and received written evidence of notices and appropriate forms sent to the Cherokee Indian tribes and the tribes' written responses. The Eastern Band and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians indicated that Randy F. was neither a member nor eligible for membership in their tribes. The Cherokee Nation responded, however, that R. was "eligible for enrollment and affiliation with Cherokee Nation by having direct lineage to an enrolled member [Oce F., his paternal great grandfather]." The letter also stated that the Cherokee Nation was not "empowered to intervene in this matter unless the child[] or eligible parent(s) apply and receive membership." The letter enclosed a membership application.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The juvenile court determined that proper ICWA notice had been given and that R. was not an Indian child. It then reinstated the order terminating Randy F. and Bernadette A.'s parental rights.

Randy F. and Bernadette A. filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, Cherokee Nation informed the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) that it had reviewed birth certificates, death certificates, and a membership application submitted by Bernadette A. and had now determined that "Oce F.[] listed by the Department of Human Services of Ventura County is not the same Oce F.[] listed as a direct lineage" in the mother's documents. The Cherokee Nation then concluded that R. was not a Cherokee Nation Indian child.

HSA presented evidence of the Cherokee Nation's new determination in a noticed hearing in the juvenile court. Bernadette A. asserted that she was seeking additional evidence of registered membership in Cherokee Nation. The court ruled that it would not change its ruling that the ICWA did not apply to R.

Randy F. and Bernadette A. appeal and contend that the juvenile court erred by concluding that R. is not an Indian child. They also assert that HSA was obliged to assist R. with tribal enrollment.

DISCUSSION

Cherokee Nation reviewed additional evidence of birth certificates, death certificates, and a membership application submitted by Bernadette A., and redetermined that R. was not an Indian child of Cherokee Nation. The Indian tribe explained that "the Oce F[.] listed by [HSA] is not the same Oce F[.] listed as a direct lineage" in the records submitted by Bernadette A. The determination by an Indian tribe that a child is or is not a member of or eligible for membership "shall be conclusive." (§ 224.3, subd. (e)(1); In re Robert A. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 982, 988.)

We must dismiss an appeal as moot when we are unable to grant effective relief. (In re Jessica K., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1315.) "A question becomes moot when, pending an appeal from a judgment of a trial court, events transpire which prevent the appellate court from granting any effectual relief." (Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 566.) The duty of the court is to decide actual controversies and render a judgment that can be carried out. (In re Jessica K., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316.) Here the juvenile court may not determine that R. is an Indian child when Cherokee Nation has determined that he is not. (§ 224.3, subd. (e)(1).)

We dismiss the appeal as moot.

We concur: COFFEE, J., PERREN, J.


Summaries of

In re R. F.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Mar 10, 2008
No. B200484 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)
Case details for

In re R. F.

Case Details

Full title:VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Mar 10, 2008

Citations

No. B200484 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2008)