In re P.R. CA4/3

Filed 7/31/13 In re P.R. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re P.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G048003 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP020206) v. OPINION APRIL S.,

Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jacki C. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Julie J. Agin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Linda S. Rhem for Minor.

The trial court terminated appellant April S.’s (mother) parental rights to now almost four-year-old P.R. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to this code). Mother is an enrolled member of the Cocopah tribe and P.R. was eligible for enrollment. Mother appealed, raising a number of issues, all centered on her argument the court failed to apply the Indian child exception to adoption. As discussed below, we reject mother’s claims the court abused its discretion and that her lawyer or minor’s lawyer rendered ineffective assistant of counsel. Mother failed to make the arguments in the trial court she now makes here for the first time, and furthermore the record demonstrates the court made extensive efforts to involve the tribe in the resolution of this case.

FACTS

P.R. was taken into protective custody when she was just short of her first birthday. A month or more earlier, mother had left her with a step-maternal grandmother with no provision for support or consent for care. The whereabouts of the parents was unknown. P.R.’s brother, B.R., had previously been placed into protective custody. The parents, having failed to comply with the case plan, B.R.’s case was scheduled for a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26 three months hence. The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) reported prior contacts with the family began six years earlier. Both parents had prior criminal histories. Mother and father both had unresolved substance abuse issues and a history of domestic violence. Mother had been diagnosed as bipolar and had been hospitalized about six times. Mother had lost her parental rights to three of her four children. The maternal step-grandmother’s former girlfriend, Q.C., requested she be considered for P.R.’s placement. P.R. was placed in her home. Q.C. provided the social