In re T.B. CA3

Filed 11/6/13 In re T.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

In re T.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF C072587 EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. J35301, Plaintiff and Respondent, J36046)

v.

P.P. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

P.P., the mother of the minors T.B. and P.H., and T.B.’s father J.B, appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and denying mother’s petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 388, 366.26; unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in not finding the sibling relationship exception to adoption. Father contends there was a failure to comply with the notice requirements of

1

the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Father and mother join each others arguments. We affirm the orders of the juvenile court

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In May 2010, three-year-old T.B. was placed in protective custody after mother left her with people who did not know T.B. or her parents. Mother admitted abusing the drug Dilaudid and testing positive for methamphetamine. Later that month, the Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services (the Department) filed a dependency petition (§ 300) alleging T.B. was at substantial risk of harm due to domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend, mother’s drug use, mother leaving T.B. with unrelated adults, and father’s incarceration. The minor was detained at a May 2010 detention hearing. The juvenile court inquired into the minor’s possible Indian heritage at the detention hearing. Mother told the juvenile court she had no Indian heritage, and did not know if father had any. The paternal grandmother told the juvenile court the paternal grandfather “claims” he has Indian heritage, “but I’m not sure.” He lived in Alaska, and the paternal grandmother did not know what type of Indian ancestry he claimed to have. Asked if she could provide contact information for the paternal grandfather, the paternal grandmother replied, “I can try. It will be through my daughter, but I can.” In a June 2010 disposition report, the Department said mother and father moved from Alaska to California in 2009. They had two children, T.B., and six-year-old B.B. Father moved back to Alaska with B.B. Father was subsequently incarcerated, and B.B. was placed with relatives in Alaska who would not return him to mother. The juvenile court sustained the petition in May 2010 and ordered reunification services for mother in June 2010. The Department sent ICWA notices to the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the three Cherokee tribes. The notice included information about the