In re Emma v. CA2/3

Filed 9/12/13 In re Emma V. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re EMMA V., a Person Coming Under the B245807 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT Super. Ct. No. CK74781) OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JENNIFER R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sherri Sobel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel.

_________________________

Jennifer R. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to Emma V. under section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.1 She contends substantial evidence does not support the findings the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (the ICWA) (92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963) does not apply and Emma was adoptable. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Emma was born in 2008 to mother and M.V. (father).2 Mother had a history of substance abuse, was a current abuser of alcohol, and had mental and emotional problems.3 Father had a history of substance abuse. Emma was a prior court dependent from September 2008 to December 2009. She was reunited with mother. Emma was detained on March 14, 2011, when mother allowed a stranger to drive her away, and a section 300 petition was filed by the Department of Children and Family Services (“Department”). On May 16, 2011, Emma was declared a dependent of the court based on sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), as to mother, that the child was at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to mother’s failure to adequately protect her, willful or negligent failure to supervise her adequately, and inability to provide regular care due to mental illness and substance abuse. The court found the ICWA did not apply. Custody was taken from parents. The Department was ordered to provide reunification services.