In re Alexis C. CA1/5

Filed 8/13/14 In re Alexis C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re ALEXIS C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140043 v. (Contra Costa County JASON C. et al., Super. Ct. No. J12-00130) Defendants and Appellants.

Jason C. (Father) and Carissa L. (Mother) appeal an order terminating their parental rights with respect to Alexis C.1 Mother contends her due process rights were violated by the juvenile court’s bias, the adoptability finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception to parental termination. Father contends notice pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) was inadequate. We remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA, and otherwise affirm. BACKGROUND In January 2012, Alexis (born February 2010) was detained by the juvenile court. In March, Mother pled no contest to allegations that (1) she placed Alexis at risk because

1 Father is Alexis’s natural father only. The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of Alexis’s presumed father; he is not a party to this appeal.

1

of her domestic violence relationship with Father, and (2) she failed to provide adequate nutrition and medical care for Alexis, causing Alexis to be significantly underweight and resulting in a diagnosis of failure to thrive. At the jurisdiction hearing, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) also noted receiving “multiple reports” that Mother was abusing pain medications she was prescribed for chronic pain. A subsequent report noted concerns raised by Father, the paternal grandmother of an older child of Mother’s, and Mother’s cousin, about Mother’s prescription drug abuse and resulting inability to adequately care for her children. Mother denied abusing prescription drugs. The juvenile court dismissed a substance abuse allegation in the petition and Mother agreed to submit to drug testing. At the May 2012 disposition hearing, the court adjudged Alexis a dependent of the juvenile court and ordered reunification services for Mother, including four supervised one-hour visits per month. The review hearing was continued several times and finally held over four days in April and May 2013. Among the substantial amount of evidence presented at this hearing was the following. Mother testified she was not a drug addict and had never abused prescription drugs. However, she had 12 positive drug tests between April and November 2012, some of which indicated substances for which Mother had no prescription. Mother testified she did not know why Alexis failed to thrive before she was detained, but Father testified Alexis physically suffered as a result of Mother’s abuse of prescription medication.2 The Bureau continued to receive reports that Mother was abusing prescription medication. Mother and Father gave contradictory accounts of the alleged domestic violence in their past relationship; Mother had previously recanted and then reasserted her allegation of domestic violence several times to Bureau staff. Mother had regular visits with Alexis at which she was affectionate and engaged. At the conclusion of the review hearing, the Bureau recommended reunification services be continued because, while it had some concerns, Mother had been cooperative and made