In re A.D. CA3
Filed 7/12/13 In re A.D. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
In re A.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF C072659 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. Plaintiff and Respondent, JD230818 & JD230819)
v.
L.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
L.A., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Appellant contends the court and the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Appellant further asserts that the court erred in terminating her parental rights because there was insufficient evidence the minors were likely to be adopted in a reasonable time. We affirm.
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
FACTS The minors, 5-month-old A.D. and 23-month-old R.D., were removed from parental custody in July 2010 due to domestic violence in the home. Both appellant and the minors’ father were Alta California Regional Center clients and had mental health issues which affected their parenting. In September 2010, the court found jurisdiction, adjudged the minors dependents, and ordered the parents to comply with the case plan. The minors were placed with the maternal great-aunt. The review reports disclosed that both A.D. and R.D. had developmental delays and were eligible for child development services from Alta California Regional Center and speech therapy from Easter Seals Disability Services (Easter Seals). R.D. had additional emotional and behavioral issues, was easily over-stimulated, and did not know how to calm herself or interact appropriately with others. After 6 months of services, A.D. no longer needed physical therapy, but remained in child development services for work on her cognitive, social, emotional, and communication delays and had in-home services from Easter Seals. A.D.’s delays ranged from 2 to 11 months. Due to her global development delays, R.D. was referred to a neurologist who ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test. Her neurological status remained unclear. Due to her age and progress she no longer qualified for services from Alta California Regional Center but could receive any necessary services through the school district. She faced discharge from the Easter Seals program due to lack of participation by the caretaker who then re-engaged with the program. R.D.’s delays ranged from 10 to 16 months. The caretaker reported both minors had difficult behaviors including playing with feces, but these behaviors were generally not seen by service providers. The social worker assessed that both minors had special needs and were specifically adoptable. A maternal aunt was assessed for possible placement of the minors and had several visits with them. During their visits the minors slept well and R.D. did not play with her feces.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)