In Re Daniel M.

1 Cal.Rptr.3d 897 (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 703 In re DANIEL M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Richard S., Defendant and Appellant.

No. D041470. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One.

June 20, 2003. Alice C. Shotton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John J. Sansone, County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Lisa Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Suzanne F. Evans, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[898] McCONNELL, J.

Richard S., the alleged father of Daniel M., purports to appeal a judgment terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Richard's sole contention is that the juvenile court committed reversible error by not complying with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). However, because Richard did not acknowledge or establish his paternity (25 U.S.C. § 1903(9); Cal. Rules of Court,[2] rule 1439(a)(4)), he lacks standing to assert the issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2002, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) removed newborn Daniel from the custody of his mother, Danielle M., because she had a history of drug abuse, admitted using drugs during the pregnancy and tested positive for methamphetamine at the birth. The Agency filed a petition on Daniel's behalf under section 300, which identified Richard as the alleged father. In paternity questionnaires, Danielle and Richard stated he may have American Indian heritage. In its detention report, the Agency noted the ICWA "does or may apply."

At the February 2002 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Richard, through counsel, stated he believed his father may have Cherokee Indian blood. Further, Danielle, through counsel, stated her mother is a registered member of an Apache tribe. The court deferred a finding on whether the ICWA was applicable. The court asked Danielle to give the Agency her mother's name for further investigation,[3] and asked Richard to bring the ICWA issue to its attention later if he established biological paternity. The appellate record contains no indication the ICWA issue was addressed further.