In re L.W. CA6

Filed 8/29/16 In re L.W. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re L.W., a Person Coming Under the H043388 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 15JU00048) SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

S.W. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders finding her daughter, L.W. (minor), to be a dependent child of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (c)),1 removing minor from her parents’ care, and ordering family reunification services to mother and C.L. (father). Mother argues reversal is required because notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and California law. The Santa Cruz County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) concedes it failed to send the required notice(s) prior to the hearing. We agree the concession is appropriate and will therefore reverse the judgment for the limited purpose of ensuring adequate inquiry and notice as prescribed by law.

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

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 9, 2015, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of minor, alleging both a failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) and serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)). The petition included the following facts relating to father. Father has “possible mental health issues [which] render[] him unable to supervise or protect the minor adequately from the conduct of her mother . . . . [Father] lives in the family home and is aware of the conduct of the mother. [Father’s] failure to protect includes allowing [mother] to verbally and emotionally abuse their daughter . . . and stunt her emotional and developmental growth by treating [minor] like a three year old toddler. [Father’s] inability to be protective places his daughter . . . at substantial risk of serious physical harm.” With respect to mother, under section 300, subdivision (c), the petition alleged minor was at risk of emotional harm due to: (1) mother’s “focus[] and preoccup[ation] with” minor’s food intake which “has contributed significantly to [minor]’s development of disordered eating patterns”; (2) mother shaming minor in front of others “calling her ‘an idiot,’ ‘coocoo’ [sic], ‘insane,’ ‘a bitch’ and telling [the minor] that she needs to live somewhere else because she is high jacking [sic] [mother’s] life”; (3) mother treating minor like a toddler rather than a 10 year old, “making [minor] play with toddler toys, sit at a toddler chair and a toddler desk for which [minor] is too big for [sic], making [the minor] wear diapers to bed and not allowing [minor] to clean herself after having a bowel movement or learning how to shower on her own. [Mother] strips [minor] in the garage and wipes her down with antibacterial wipes before she is allowed to enter the home, [minor] is not allowed to socialize with her peers”; (4) mother’s preoccupation with minor’s “bowel movements and regulating when and how much her daughter goes to the bathroom”; (5) mother’s inappropriate use of public services, such as calling 911 when minor will not get dressed, taking minor to the emergency room when she refused to go 2