Opinion
Page 533a
131 Cal.App.4th 533a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEANNIE V., Defendant and Appellant. E036823 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division June 30, 2005Super.Ct.No. J185176
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
RICHLI J.
The opinion filed in this matter on June 30, 2005 [130 Cal.App.4th 1148;__Cal.Rptr.3d__], is modified as follows:
1. On page 2 [130 Cal.App.4th 1154, advance report, carryover par.], the last two sentences of the second paragraph (from “The detention hearing” through “a more favorable result”) are deleted, and the following is inserted in their place:
The detention hearing did not involve a foster care placement within the meaning of the ICWA; hence, the substantive provisions of the ICWA did not apply. The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing did involve a foster care placement, and we may assume the review hearings did as well, but there is no reasonable probability that, if the substantive provisions of the ICWA had been applied, the mother would have enjoyed a more favorable result.
2. On page 13 [130 Cal.App.4th 1161, advance report], in the last paragraph, after the words, “However, as long as the social worker did inquire of the parents,” the following is inserted:
and as long as the parents failed to provide any information requiring follow-up,
3. On page 20 [130 Cal.App.4th 1166, advance report], the first full paragraph under part II.B.3.c and the first sentence of the next paragraph (from “The six- and 12-month review hearings” through “submitted on the social worker’s report”) are deleted, and the following is inserted in their place:
The six- and 12-month review hearings did not result in S.B. being removed from a parent and placed in a foster home or institution. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1903(l)(i).) She simply remained in the same foster care placement
Page 533b
made previously at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. Nevertheless, we may assume, without deciding, that these review hearings involved a foster care placement within the meaning of the ICWA. (See In re Bridget R. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1520-1521, fn. 24 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 507].)
If so, the juvenile court was required to make both “active efforts” and “serious damage” findings. Nevertheless, at the six-month review hearing, both parents once again submitted on the social worker’s report.
Except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.
We concur: RAMIREZ P.J., KING J.