In re Natalie L. CA4/1

Filed 10/29/14 In re Natalie L. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re NATALIE L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D065966 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14667A-B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALERIE L., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.

Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed. Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Valerie L. appeals orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her children, Natalie L. and Nathaniel L., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (All further statutory references are to this Code.) She contends the juvenile

court prejudicially erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or the Act) inapplicable and terminating her parental rights before first giving notice under the Act.

We disagree and affirm the orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After receiving several referrals for the family, the San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency (the Agency) set up a preventive services plan in January 2012 for Valerie, who agreed to keep the children away from any verbal or physical altercations. Despite these efforts and although Valerie was counseled about the effects of domestic violence on young children, she continued to engage in verbal and physical altercations with her father, her girlfriend and others in front of the children. In June 2012, Valerie refused a voluntary services plan and the Agency filed

dependency petitions on behalf of Natalie and Nathaniel, alleging that the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm based on their repeated exposure to domestic violence. The court ordered the children detained at the Polinsky Children's Center and reunification services for Valerie. The Agency placed the children with their maternal grandfather the following month. Valerie told the Agency that the children did not have any Native American heritage and thus the Agency believed ICWA was inapplicable. However, at the August 2012 adjudication and disposition hearing, the children's father, Luis D., indicated that his parents or grandparents had told him he had some Navajo ancestry.1 Based on contrary reports to the social worker from the paternal grandmother, the court indicated that it would review the issue again at the continued hearing.