In re T.P. CA5

Filed 2/18/14 In re T.P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

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

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F067644 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 516563, 516564, Plaintiff and Respondent, 516565)

v. OPINION L.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nan Cohan Jacobs, Judge. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Three children of appellant L.M. (mother) were detained and subsequently found to be dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code

section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). Mother informed the juvenile court and the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the agency) that she may have Cherokee ancestry. In this appeal, mother argues that we should reverse and remand to the juvenile court because the record does not contain sufficient affirmative evidence of the agency’s efforts to collect genealogical information about the children pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) (ICWA).1 We affirm. Mother cites no authority for the view that the agency is required to present evidence of its diligence in attempting to collect information about the children’s parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents before informing the juvenile court that the information is unknown. In the absence of any such requirement, we must adhere to the basic appellate principle that reversal is appropriate only when the record affirmatively shows error. None has been shown. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother took her then four-year-old son T.P. to a hospital on January 28, 2013. She reported that he had been exhibiting manic behavior, which included threatening to kill himself as he held a knife to his throat. Hospital staff observed bruises in many places on T.P.’s body. While a social worker was speaking with mother, mother became upset and began yelling. T.P. was detained for the night pursuant to section 5150 and mother was escorted out of the hospital by security personnel. A social worker who subsequently investigated received reports that T.P. was being physically abused by L.Q., who is the father of T.P.’s siblings, U.Q. and D.Q. T.P.’s father is J.M. On January 31, 2013, the agency filed a petition alleging that T.P., U.Q., and D.Q. were children subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300. The children were placed in foster homes. On June 20, 2013, the court made jurisdictional