In re S.C. and D.W. CA1/3

Filed 9/30/13 In re S.C. and D.W. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.C. and D.W., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136933 v. (Sonoma County WILLIE W., Super. Ct. No. 3513) Defendant and Appellant.

Willie W. (Father), father of S.C., born in 1995, and D.W., born in 2003, appeals from the juvenile court’s post-permanent plan review findings and orders. His sole contention on appeal is that the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were not met, and that the matter must therefore be “remand[ed to] the juvenile court [with directions] to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA.” The Sonoma County Human Services Department (the Department) concedes that a “limited remand” for purposes of ICWA compliance is appropriate. We therefore affirm the post- permanent plan findings and orders and remand the matter to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA’s notice provisions.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Dependency Petition On December 21, 2010, the Department filed a dependency petition alleging that S.C. and D.W. (together, the minors1) were at substantial risk due to Father’s mental health issues and Mother’s failure to protect them from Father’s unsafe behaviors. The petition further alleged the minors were suffering, or at risk of suffering, serious emotional damage. At a December 22, 2010 detention hearing, the juvenile court found prima facie evidence supported the petition and ordered the minors detained. The juvenile court placed the minors in their maternal grandparents’ care. On January 25, 2011, the petition was amended to include allegations that Father had physically assaulted S.C. and that Mother had failed to protect her. The juvenile court sustained the petition as amended and assumed jurisdiction over the minors on February 16, 2011. At a March 16, 2011 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered the continued removal of the children. Both parents waived reunification services and a plan of legal guardianship with the maternal grandparents was put into place. Letters of Guardianship issued and the matter was continued for a guardianship review every six months thereafter. ICWA As to the issues related to ICWA, the maternal grandparents informed the investigating social worker on December 19, 2010, that Father’s Indian heritage was Blackfoot and Pomo of the Potter Valley band, and that Father’s maternal grandmother was “a significant elder in that band.” “On [Mother’s] side,” the maternal grandparents stated that the maternal grandfather’s maternal grandmother “was full blood Cherokee,” but that she “was adopted away from the tribe” and there were no documents to prove her heritage. At the December 22, 2010 detention hearing, Mother informed the court that the maternal great-grandmother was Cherokee, but that she did not know whether she had “left the tribe and got married to [the] grandfather, or if she was adopted and then married 1 Although S.C. has now reached the age of majority, we will refer to her and D.W. as “the minors,” for ease of reference.