In re Isaiah M. CA2/3

Filed 5/13/16 In re Isaiah M. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re ISAIAH M. et al., Persons Coming B266626 Under the Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK96086) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VICTORIA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Kimberly Roura, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Victoria M. (mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to Isaiah M., born October 2012, and H.M., born December 2013.1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in failing to order compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. and Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.3.2 We find no error, and thus we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Isaiah tested positive for cocaine exposure at birth and was immediately detained by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). DCFS filed a dependency petition on October 22, 2012, alleging that Isaiah was a juvenile court dependent pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), because he was exposed to cocaine in utero, mother had a twenty-two year history of drug use and was a current user of cocaine, and mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and failed to take her prescribed medication. At the October 22, 2012 detention hearing, mother submitted a “Parental Notification of Indian Status” in which she stated that she had no known Indian ancestry. However, the maternal grandmother addressed the court and said that her mother and father (i.e., the maternal great grandparents) were “part Cherokee.” She explained she learned about the family’s heritage from her parents, who told her “we had a little Cherokee [heritage] from my great grandparents, great great grandparents.” Maternal grandmother said she did not know from which tribes her parents may have descended, and neither she nor her parents were enrolled members of a tribe. The court found a prima facie case for detaining Isaiah and ordered him placed in foster care. The court further found that ICWA did not apply: “Based upon the Welfare and Institutions Code . . . , four generations not being registered and the information being from the great grandparents [that] they had a little Cherokee in them, the court does