In re A.D. CA3

Filed 6/27/13 In re A.D. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

In re A.D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

NEVADA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES C072683 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. J9178, J9179) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.D., mother of the minors, A.D. and K.D., appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Appellant, limiting her arguments to K.D., contends the court erred in failing to find she had established the beneficial relationship exception to the preference for adoption and failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act

1

(ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). We reverse for compliance with the notice provisions of ICWA as to K.D. and affirm the orders as to A.D.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The minors, eight-year-old A.D. and five-year-old K.D., were placed in protective custody pursuant to a warrant in December 2011 after police found the minors and appellant in a home where marijuana was accessible to the minors. When A.D. was interviewed he disclosed he was subject to significant physical abuse by appellant’s former boyfriend. After being placed in a foster home, A.D. told the social worker he did not miss appellant and did not want to go home. K.D. said he did miss appellant a little and that the former boyfriend and the mother spanked them. Initially, appellant had twice weekly supervised visits with the minors. At a visit in February 2012, A.D. sought reassurance that appellant would be nice when they came home. In a visit in March 2012, the minors reminded appellant of a violent incident between her and a boyfriend. Appellant deflected the issue and minimized the incident. At some visits K.D. told appellant how much he loved her, at others he ignored her and did not respond when she spoke to him. The disposition report stated that K.D.’s father, Clay G. reported that his maternal grandmother Margaret M., told him there was Choctaw heritage in the family and he believed he could be 1/16th Choctaw. He was not in contact with the paternal grandmother or his great-grandmother and did not know how to contact either. He said his mother, Judith M. was born in Kansas. At the contested disposition hearing in April 2012, counsel for K.D.’s father Clay G. raised the question of the status of his Indian heritage and was told the agency was waiting for Clay G. to complete the Indian heritage form. The court, relying on In re Jeremiah G. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1514, concluded that the information Clay G. had provided constituted a bare suggestion that K.D. was an Indian child and was insufficient