In re D.R. CA3

Filed 7/16/14 In re D.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

In re D. R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C074380 Court Law.

BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. J35822) EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES ,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MEGAN B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Megan B., mother of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court selecting a permanent plan of guardianship. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 387.) Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting guardianship to the foster parents because the

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to this code.

1

placement did not comply with the placement preferences of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and there was no good cause to deviate from the preferences. We affirm. FACTS Following an incident of domestic violence in May 2011, which placed three- month-old D. at risk of physical harm and resulted in the parents’ arrest, the Butte County Department of Employment and Social Services (Department) filed a petition alleging the minor was at risk due to the parents’ domestic violence and mother’s history of mental health and substance abuse issues. The juvenile court ordered the minor detained and in August 2011 sustained the petition as amended. The disposition report, filed in August 2011, recommended services for the parents. The report stated father claimed Indian heritage in the Mono tribe and was enrolled in the North Fork Rancheria branch of the tribe. The tribal representative confirmed the minor’s eligibility for membership in the tribe and told the social worker she was waiting for father to send completed tribal enrollment papers and additional documentation from the Department. The report further stated the maternal grandmother had been considered for placement but was denied and had filed a grievance. The minor was initially placed in shelter care then moved to a foster home licensed by the county because there was no identified ICWA home available. Subsequently, an Indian home became available but the parents requested that the minor remain in the current placement. The Indian expert’s declaration noted that the minor’s placement was not within the ICWA placement preferences and the Department should continue to work with the tribe on the issue. At the disposition hearing, the court adopted the Department’s recommendation and found that the ICWA applied. Visit logs for mother’s visits from July to November of 2011 showed that, while mother occasionally had positive and appropriate interaction with the minor, she generally was unwilling or unable to take direction from the in-home educator and social