In re Emily M. CA4/3

Filed 9/24/14 In re Emily M. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re EMILY M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G049646 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP022198) v. OPINION AMBER D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Dismissed as moot. Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor. * * *

Appellant Amber D. (mother) appeals from the termination of her parental rights over her daughter, Emily M. (child) at a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and 1 2 Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends respondent Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to comply with the specific inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et. seq. (ICWA)), and requests that we reverse and remand with directions to the juvenile court to “exact compliance with the mandates.” We find this appeal moot as a result of events which occurred during the pendency of this appeal, and therefore dismiss. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Abbreviated Summary of Events Which Occurred Before the Appeal Was Filed. In 2011, mother was living with the child and her boyfriend, who is not the child’s father. After mother was arrested on a parole violation, her boyfriend took the child to live with a friend. In February 2012, the child was detained after SSA received a report she had been left without support. SSA filed a petition alleging the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b). Mother filled out form ICWA-020 indicating she might have Cherokee Indian heritage. She told the social worker her father, Roy D. possessed the relevant family genealogical information. The social worker attempted but failed to contact Roy D. by telephone on February 16, 21, and 23. On February 9, 2012, the court found SSA had established a prima facie case justifying emergency removal of the child. The court also found the ICWA might apply and ordered SSA to “continue to investigate possible American Indian heritage and provide notice to appropriate tribe.”