In re L.E. CA3

Filed 10/26/15 In re L.E. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re L.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C078911

v. (Super. Ct. No. JD233617)

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.W., mother of the minor, appeals from orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 3951.) Mother contends the record shows there was no inquiry by the juvenile court or the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) into father’s possible Indian heritage. Mother also argues the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to avoid termination of her parental rights. We conclude (1) the Department satisfied its statutory duty of inquiry and (2) the juvenile court properly found the beneficial parental exception did not apply. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTS The eight-year-old minor was removed from parental custody in August 2013 because of domestic violence and mother’s substance abuse. The court sent notice of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing to the minor’s father, R.E., by certified mail. The mailing also included, inter alia, a Parental Notification of Indian Status, form ICWA- 020. The return receipt was signed by R.E. Mother filed her ICWA-020 form in August 2013 disclaiming Indian ancestry. The court found that, as to mother, the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply but made no finding as to R.E. The jurisdiction report stated the social worker had spoken to mother who minimized the issues that led to removal but nonetheless began to participate in the services offered to her. The minor told the social worker she did not want to go home. During a telephone contact, mother began yelling at the minor and told the minor she was not going to try to get her back. The minor was very upset by the call. After receiving notification from the Department that the minor was in protective custody, R.E. called the Department and said he was unable to take custody of the minor at that time and wanted her placed with the paternal grandmother. In a phone interview a few days later, R.E. stated he is the biological father of the minor and holds her out to be his daughter. While he did not have suitable housing to accommodate her, he stated he would like the opportunity to reunify with the minor in the future. He reported that he always had concerns with the minor’s safety in the care of mother but was not in a position to intervene due to his own substance abuse and prior incarceration. An addendum stated R.E. had not demonstrated any commitment to establishing a relationship with the minor.