(Super. Ct. No. JD226645)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull, Acting P. J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellants, the father and mother of the minor, appeal following the six-month review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Appellants claim the court erred in applying provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We affirm the juvenile court's orders.
In November 2007, a dependency petition was filed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department), which, as later amended, alleged appellants were unable to provide adequate care for the eight-month-old minor, who was medically fragile, and they had mental health and cognitive deficiencies that impaired their ability to parent. According to the jurisdictional report, the minor had been deprived of oxygen during her birth, causing brain damage and developmental delays, and she had a tube inserted in her stomach to assist her in obtaining adequate nutrition. She was being seen by numerous medical specialists and an occupational therapist, as well as receiving services from the Alta Regional Center.
Appellants had signed a voluntary placement agreement following the minor's birth and were provided voluntary services, including substance abuse treatment and a parenting education class. At the time that the voluntary placement was due to expire, appellants were homeless and had been uncooperative in attempts to assist them in obtaining housing. In addition, they had refused to participate in mental health assessments, and the mother stopped participating in substance abuse treatment after approximately one month.
Appellants both reported Indian heritage. The father claimed Sioux, Iroquois and Seneca ancestry, and the mother reported ancestry with the Pomo, Pit River, Wailaki and Round Valley tribes. Notice was sent to 52 tribes on December 4, 2007, for the December 21, 2007, hearing with information about appellants' Indian relatives. At the hearing on December 21, the matter was continued for three weeks because not all of the return receipts had come back from the tribes.
Subsequently, the Department reported that the minor was eligible for enrollment with the Round Valley Indian Tribes (Round Valley Tribe). The parties agreed there had been compliance with ICWA notice requirements.
On January 29, 2008, the Department sent letters to all of the possible tribes, referring to the prior ICWA notice and providing the maternal great-great-grandmother's married name and her date and place of death.
The jurisdictional hearing took place on February 1, 2008. The mother's attorney informed the juvenile court that the Round Valley Tribe intended to intervene once the minor was enrolled. The allegations in the amended petition were sustained, and the court ordered the parents to comply with the case plan and to participate in counseling as arranged by the social worker to address a variety of specified issues. In addition, the mother was ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation for the purpose of tailoring her services. The juvenile court set the matter for an interim hearing and ordered notice to the Round Valley Tribe to give it an opportunity to be heard on whether the minor was an Indian child.
At the interim hearing in March 2008, a representative of the Round Valley Tribe appeared and informed the juvenile court that the minor was an Indian child in relationship to the tribe. The court declared the minor an Indian child and, after noting the other tribes that received notice had either determined the minor was not eligible for membership or had not ...