In re K.F. CA6

Filed 9/15/14 In re K.F. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re K.F., a Person Coming Under the H040807 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JD22317)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant is the mother of a dependent child, K.F. On appeal, Mother asserts the juvenile court committed reversible error, because it failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. section 1901, et seq. (ICWA). Specifically, Mother asserts the court erred by failing to wait the required 10 days after the tribes had received notice before making its jurisdictional and dispositional findings in this case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 On January 14, 2014, a petition was filed by the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) on behalf of K.F., who was 14 years old at the time. There was an Indian Child Inquiry Attachment to the petition stating that K.F. might have Indian ancestry. At the detention hearing on January 15, 2014, the court found that the ICWA might apply and that notice to the relevant tribes must be sent. The ICWA notice of Child Custody Proceedings for Indian Child was filed by the Department on February 11, 2014. The ICWA notice was sent registered or certified mail to the relevant tribes on February 11, 2014. At the February 18, 2014 jurisdiction hearing, the court made the following statement with regard to the ICWA applicability: “I appreciate it’s a little short, but I don’t have reason to believe that his child is Native American or will be found such by the tribes. Obviously, if they decide she’s Native American, I can make that finding. It doesn’t make much sense to delay it when we have just a wisp of a belief that the family has heritage.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained the petition and found the allegations in the petition were true. The court found K.F. was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b) and (c). The court also found that notice under the ICWA had been given as provided by law. An interim review hearing was held on April 29, 2014. At this hearing, the Department presented its interim report following receipt of information from all relevant