In re K.G. CA2/8

Filed 7/17/15 In re K.G. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re K.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the B259547 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK01946)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn Kading Martinez, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mark J. Saladino, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

The juvenile court in this case exercised dependency jurisdiction over four children—K.G., born in 2005; D.G., born in 2006; H.G., born in 2007; and R.G., Jr., born in 2008—after sustaining allegations that R.G., Sr. (father) repeatedly sexually abused K.G., and that father and G.G. (mother) physically abused H.G. by striking him with a belt, leaving bruises.1 At disposition, the court removed the children from father’s custody, and, based on the recommendation of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), placed them with mother, ordering family maintenance services for mother and the children. It refused to order visitation or reunification services for father pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) (reunification services may be withheld from parent based on sexual abuse of child or sibling). Father appeals the court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders, contending only that the court erred in refusing to order notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Mother never claimed any Indian heritage, father initially denied any heritage, and the court concluded at times during the proceedings that the ICWA did not apply. But prior to his arraignment hearing, father submitted an ICWA- 020 form claiming Choctaw heritage through his paternal great, great, great grandmother.2 At the hearing, the court asked father what other information he had and he responded, “That’s all. My mom just telling me.” The court refused to order notice, stating, “We do not need to go back to great-great-great-relatives and it appears there’s just—it’s just speculation that there may be heritage.” When the court asked if there were any objections to this finding, all counsel, including father’s, said no.