In re L.C. CA3

Filed 6/5/14 In re L.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re L.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the C075200 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT JD231681, JD231682) OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREA B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Andrea B., mother of the two minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The minors, one-year-old L.C. and two-year-old K.C, were removed from parental custody in June 2011 due to petitions alleging they were at risk of harm from serious domestic violence in the home that had not been alleviated by voluntary services. The detention report stated that father claimed Cherokee heritage through his paternal relatives and mother claimed no Indian heritage. However, at the detention hearing both parents filed “Parental Notification of Indian Status” forms in which father again claimed Cherokee heritage and mother now claimed “Blackfoot” heritage.2 At the detention hearing the court confirmed that mother claimed Indian ancestry in the Blackfoot tribe and directed that both parents be provided with a questionnaire that would provide the Department with relevant noticing information. The court ordered the Department to give notice to all federally recognized tribes.

The paralegal assigned to provide the ICWA notice and report to the court on the results filed a declaration in July 2011. The declaration stated that the paralegal called father on July 1, 2011, and received limited information from father, which was incorporated in the notice sent to the Cherokee tribes. The paralegal had not received any completed questionnaire or family tree diagram. The declaration does not state that the paralegal made or attempted to make contact with mother or inquire about her claimed Blackfoot heritage. Attached to the paralegal’s declaration was a copy of the “Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child” that the paralegal sent to the Cherokee tribes.