In re P.G. CA2/1

Filed 11/22/13 In re P.G. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re P.G., a Person Coming Under the B248497 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK76498)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARMEN M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles of Los Angeles County. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Commissioner. Affirmed. Nancy O. Flores, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Melinda A. Green, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

1 In this dependency proceeding (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), Carmen M. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her one-year-old daughter. She contends the order must be reversed because the juvenile court failed to determine whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq., applies to these proceedings. Mother does not point out any deficiency in the notice the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Secretary of the Interior and the tribes Mother identified as possible heritage. Nor does she challenge the propriety of DCFS’s statements in its reports that ICWA does not apply. She asks this court to “invalidate[]” the order terminating her parental rights because the juvenile court did not expressly state on the record that ICWA does not apply. She does not challenge the termination of her parental rights on the merits. We find that the juvenile court made an implicit finding ICWA does not apply. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating parental rights. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2012, DCFS filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that on the day Mother’s daughter P.G. was born, Mother and daughter had positive toxicology screens for amphetamine and methamphetamine. The petition also alleged Mother had a three-year history of methamphetamine abuse and failed to reunify with another daughter in prior dependency proceedings due to her substance abuse. In the February 15, 2012 detention report, DCFS noted a social worker spoke with Mother in person on February 9, 2012 and Mother “denied any Indian Ancestry.” On 2 February 10, 2012, Johnny G. (Father) also “denied any Indian Ancestry.” On February 15, 2012, Mother and Father each filled out and signed a Parental Notification of Indian Status (form ICWA-020), stating they had no Indian ancestry as far as they knew.