In Re EH

46 Cal.Rptr.3d 787 (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1330 In re E.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

San Bernardino County Department of Children's Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Mischelle A., Defendant and Appellant.

No. E039350. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division Two.

July 6, 2006. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for Defendant and Appellant.

Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Jacqueline Carey-Wilson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Pasadena, for Minor.

OPINION

McKINSTER, J.

Mischelle A., defendant and appellant (hereafter mother), appeals from the trial court's order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 selecting guardianship as the permanent plan for her 14-year-old daughter, E.H. The only issue in this appeal is whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) does not apply. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the finding and therefore will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Resolution of the issue mother raises in this appeal does not require a detailed recitation either of the facts or of the procedural history of this case. Those details are set out in mother's opening brief. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that mother has seven children by four different fathers and has been involved [788] intermittently in the dependency process since 1991 due to numerous ongoing issues, including a history of substance abuse. This appeal is from a dependency proceeding initiated in January 2003, with respect to the six of mother's children who at that time were minors. In a previous appeal in this same dependency proceeding, mother challenged the trial court's postpermanency planning order modifying visitation. We affirmed. (In re J.G. (July 28, 2005), E037162, 2005 WL 1785059 [nonpub. opn.].)