In Re Holly B.

California Court of Appeal Apr 8, 2009 No. C058116Published

Before: Robie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant lacked standing to challenge the modification of a psychological evaluation order and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notice issue was not cognizable in the context of the appealed orders.

Issues

Does a parent have standing to challenge a juvenile court's order rescinding a psychological evaluation of a minor?
Is an alleged failure to comply with ICWA notice provisions cognizable in an appeal from an order modifying a psychological evaluation requirement?

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The ICWA is not implicated in the orders appealed from and, unlike orders placing a child in foster care or terminating parental rights, failure to comply with the ICWA notice provisions has no impact upon the court's orders.”

172 Cal.App.4th 1261 (2009) ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ In re HOLLY B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MONO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

CLUSTER B., Defendant and Appellant.

No. C058116. Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

April 8, 2009. [1263] Valerie E. Sopher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Marshall S. Rudolph, County Counsel, and Stacey Simon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

ROBIE, J.

Cluster B., father of the minor, appeals from findings and orders made at a status review hearing and from an order granting respondent's petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] §§ 366.3, 388, 395.) Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting the petition for modification brought by the Mono County Department of Health and Human Services (the department) to rescind a prior order for a psychological examination of the minor and thereby erred in finding the department provided adequate services to the minor. Appellant also argues the court failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Because appellant lacks standing as to the former issues and the latter issue is not cognizable in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Due to the limited scope of this appeal, an extensive recitation of the facts of the dependency proceeding is unnecessary.

Suffice it to say that the minor suffered severe neglect and physical abuse as early as 1994 at the hands of her biological mother, and was placed with appellant in 1998. Problems arose in 1999 and 2000 and eventually, in October 2004, the department removed the 12-year-old minor from appellant's custody due to physical abuse and a pattern of conduct toward the minor which inflicted serious emotional damage upon her. The minor participated in three psychological evaluations, one of which was done prior to removal.

In Re Holly B.

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief