In re Jesse S. CA5

Filed 6/20/14 In re Jesse S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JESSE S., a Minor.

JOYCE S., F068299

Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. AT-3151)

v. OPINION JERRY G.,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sharon Elizabeth Mettler† and John D. Oglesby, Judges.

Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Joyce S., in pro. per., for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Kane, Acting P.J., Peña, J., and Sarkisian, J.‡ †Retired judge of the Kern Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. ‡Judge ofthe Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION On appeal, Jerry G. (Father) argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by granting Joyce S.’s (Mother) petition pursuant to Family Code section 7822 because the court did not act in Jesse S.’s best interests, as compelling evidence established the minor wanted a relationship with Father. Father also contends the court’s order granting the petition must be conditionally reversed due to insufficient compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We will affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Mother and Father met in 2003. After Mother became pregnant and advised Father of the pregnancy, he became threatening; Father advised Mother he had been told by someone that her child was not his and he did not want to be listed on the birth certificate. In July of that year, Mother ended the relationship and obtained a restraining order against Father. When the minor was about a year old,1 Mother and Father established a visitation plan. They began dating again and became engaged in the summer of 2007. Ultimately, however, their relationship ended due to Father’s anger. Court-ordered visitation plans were established in 2008. Following a modification of the plan by the court in June 2009, Father stopped contacting Mother to arrange visitation with the minor. In June 2011, Mother was served with paperwork indicating Father was seeking visitation; a hearing was set for July 18, 2011. Mother appeared for the hearing, however, Father did not. On that date, sole legal and physical custody was awarded to Mother. Father was to have reasonable visitation with the minor, contingent upon, inter alia, his providing Mother with advance notice of his intent to commence visitation and proof of three negative or clean drug test results from an approved lab.