In Re OK

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 276 (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 152 In re O.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Maximillian K. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. C041382. Court of Appeal, Third District.

January 10, 2003. As Modified February 10, 2003. Review Denied May 14, 2003. [277] Beth A. Melvin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Maximillian K.

Maureen L. Keaney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anna L.

Robert A. Ryan, Jr., County Counsel, and Lilly C. Frawley, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HULL, J.

Appellants, the mother and father of the minors, appeal from the order of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellants contend the juvenile court erred when it conducted the section 366.26 hearing without ensuring compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1902 et seq.) We affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed dependency petitions in October 2001 concerning the newborn minor twins, based on allegations that appellants had committed lewd and lascivious acts on the minors' six-year-old half sibling and were incarcerated pending trial for these acts. The petitions were subsequently amended to add allegations that another half sibling had also been molested.

The minute order from the detention hearing indicated that the mother "may be of Native American [h]eritage." ICWA notice was sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In a letter accompanying the notice to the BIA, a paralegal with DHHS advised that the mother "may have Indian ancestry but she has been unable to provide information regarding her family history or tribal affiliation." Correspondence from the BIA stated that the ICWA notice was being returned because it contained "[insufficient identifying tribal information."