In re E v. CA1/4

Filed 5/9/14 In re E.V. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re E.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138505 v. (Sonoma County K.C., Super. Ct. No. 3897-DEP; 3898-DEP) Defendant and Appellant; P.A. et al., Movants and Appellants.

K.C., the mother of E.V., age four, and R.A., age two, appeals from the court’s order terminating her parental rights and the order placing them for adoption. P.A. and G.A., R.A.’s de facto parents, also appeal and join in mother’s opening and reply briefs. Mother contends that the court abused its discretion in ordering an Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) (ICWA) placement for her children. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The children came to the attention of the Sonoma County Human Services Department (the Department) in April 2012 when the de facto parents requested legal guardianship of R.A. During the guardianship investigation process, the Department

1

discovered that G.A. had a significant child abuse history and that P.A. had been involved in several incidents including assault, domestic violence, battery and public intoxication. The Department also learned that mother had a significant substance abuse problem, was affiliated with a gang, and had failed to reunify with the children’s half-sibling. Finally, E.V. had been in the care of the maternal grandmother, who also had a history with the Department. The Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition on April 17, 2012 alleging that mother had failed to provide adequate care and supervision for R.A. and E.V. As to R.A., the Department alleged that mother had failed to protect him because he was living with people who had a child abuse and criminal history. Mother had also failed to reunify with the children’s half-sibling. As to E.V., the Department alleged that she was living with the maternal grandmother who had a substantial child welfare history with her own children. On April 18, 2012, the court ordered that the children be detained.2 The children were placed together in an emergency foster home. The Department’s report for the jurisdictional hearing recommended that no reunification services be offered to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) due to her failure to reunify with the children’s half-sibling.3 The court continued the jurisdictional hearing because the children’s counsel had a conflict of interest. On June 13, 2012, the Department informed the court that R.A.’s father was in custody and was also a tribal member with Dry Creek Rancheria. On June 20, 2012, the court denied the de facto parents’ motion for presumed parent status without prejudice.