In re S.S. CA3

Filed 10/9/14 In re S.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ----

In re S. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075545 Law.

CALAVERAS WORKS AND HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. 13JD5402) AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Michael S., father of the minor, appeals from the denial of his petition for modification and from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 §§ 366.26, 388.) Father contends the Calaveras County Works and

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to this code.

1

Human Service Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) Father also argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his petition for modification. We agree with the first contention and reverse and remand for the ICWA notice compliance. FACTS In February 2013, the juvenile court detained 15-month-old S. S. due to mother’s methamphetamine abuse and mental health issues and the ongoing domestic violence in the home. The Agency placed the minor with a relative. The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for the parents. The six-month review report filed in August 2013 recommended termination of services. The report stated the parents continued to live together at the paternal grandmother’s home and admitted to continued drug use. Neither parent had made any significant progress in services despite being referred to appropriate service providers. The parents visited only four times and did not ask to schedule any more visits. Unsurprisingly, there was no apparent bond between the parents and the minor. The report concluded the parents had failed to make even minimal progress in correcting the problems which led to removal. At the review hearing in September 2013, the court adopted the Agency’s recommendation, terminated services for the parents and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minor. The assessment for the section 366.26 hearing stated the minor was in a relative placement, which was also an adoptive home. The minor needed dental work but was otherwise a generally healthy child with no developmental delays. The assessment recommended termination of parental rights. A week before the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, father filed a petition for modification seeking return of the minor to his care while he completed his case plan. Father alleged, as changed circumstances, that he had made substantial progress in the case plan, finishing parenting classes, inpatient substance abuse treatment and the