In re Isaiah W.

Filed 8/8/14 Opn filed after rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re ISAIAH W., A Person Coming Under B250231 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK91018) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ASHLEE R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Patti L. Dikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the County Counsel, John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________

Ashlee R. (mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to the now two-year-old Isaiah W. She contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply. We hold that mother failed to timely appeal the juvenile court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2011, Isaiah was born with a positive toxicology for marijuana and exhibited withdrawal symptoms. The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition alleging that mother’s and father’s illicit drug use placed Isaiah at risk of harm.1 At the detention hearing, the juvenile court removed Isaiah from his parents’ care and ordered reunification services for them. Mother told the juvenile court that she may have American Indian ancestry, and the court ordered the Department to investigate mother’s claim. The Department interviewed maternal relatives and reported to the court that maternal grandfather may have had Blackfoot ancestry and maternal great-great-grandmother may have been part of a Cherokee tribe. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on January 20, 2012, the juvenile court reviewed the Department’s report and concluded that there was no “reason to know” that Isaiah was “an Indian child as defined under ICWA.” Accordingly, the court did not order that the Department provide notice to any tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Neither mother nor father objected or argued that the ICWA was applicable. The court adjudged Isaiah a dependent and ordered him placed in foster care. The court ordered the parents to participate in counseling and drug testing. Mother did not appeal that order.