Super. Ct. Nos. J34345, J34346, J34347, J34348
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
C.H., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court made at the permanency review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.22, 395.)*fn1 Mother raises several contentions relating to the substantive provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) as interpreted in California statutes and rules.*fn2 (§§ 224-224.6; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.480-5.487.*fn3 ) We conclude the court erred in failing to make a finding of active efforts but the error was not prejudicial and we shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The four minors, D.G.H. (aged 14), D.D.H. (aged 11), J.H. (aged seven), and D.K.H. (aged four), were removed from the father's custody in September 2008. The minors are Indian children and the ICWA applies. Both parents were offered reunification services. Prior to the permanency hearing, the father died and J.H. and D.D.H. were placed with a cousin. By the time of the permanency hearing, mother had not completed parenting classes, had relapsed into substance abuse and was not visiting regularly. A psychological evaluation indicated mother had mild cognitive impairments and a memory dysfunction. The social worker spent large amounts of time on the case and worked closely with the tribe in tailoring mother's service plan and in following up on mother's participation. At the permanency hearing in January 2010, the court ordered further services for mother, although she had not significantly benefitted from the previous reunification efforts, and modified the recommended findings to include the phrase "active efforts" as required by the ICWA.*fn4
The report for the permanency review hearing filed in March 2010, recommended termination of services and a permanent plan of long-term foster care with a goal of guardianship for the minors. D.G.H. and D.D.H. remained placed with a cousin while J.H. and D.K.H. were in a tribal foster home. Mother continued to struggle to find stable housing for herself and her infant and was currently living with a relative.
During this period of services, the social worker offered transportation to mother, which she declined. The social worker also made referrals as needed to services, including those at Feather River Tribal Health (FRTH), and made active efforts to discuss mother's progress and her ability to apply the concepts addressed in the services. The social worker continued to call and remind mother of appointments to ensure her attendance and supervised her weekly visitation with the minors. At supervised visits mother did not demonstrate she had benefitted from parenting classes at FRTH in that she was unable to consistently monitor the minors' behaviors and intervene appropriately, asked five-year-old D.K.H. to watch her one-year-old child so she could leave the room and generally did not understand age-appropriate behavior. The visits remained supervised because mother continued to try to discuss adult matters with the minors, which led to their acting out when they returned to foster care. Mother participated in a domestic violence class at FRTH, but maintained her relationship with the father of the one year old although the father had a history of domestic violence. Mother also participated in substance abuse treatment at FRTH. Mother was regularly visiting J.H. and D.K.H. but had difficulty supervising them. D.G.H. and D.D.H. continued to refuse regular visits with mother. Visits were increased to include a visit at the Tribal Office during the Elder's Dinner. The social worker recommended continuing the current placements with a goal of greater permanency for J.H. and D.K.H.
The permanency review hearing was continued to May 2010. At the hearing, mother submitted on the recommendation to terminate reunification services with the placements of the minors to remain the same. All the parties agreed to that resolution of the matter. As to D.K.H. and J.H., the court terminated reunification services and ordered a permanent plan of long-term foster care with a goal of guardianship. As to D.G.H. and D.D.H., the court terminated reunification services and ordered a plan of relative placement. The issue of good cause to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences was reserved by stipulation. The findings and orders adopted by the juvenile court were not amended to strike the phrase "reasonable efforts" and replace it with the phrase "active efforts" and no other modification of the orders was made to show a finding of active efforts.
I Mother's notice of appeal states she is appealing the orders of the permanency planning hearing as to all four minors. However, the arguments in her opening brief are limited to the two younger minors, J.H. and D.K.H. No issues having been raised as to the two older minors, the permanency planning orders as to D.G.H. and D.D.H. are affirmed. (See People v. Tanner (1979) 24 Cal.3d 514, 518, fn. 2.)
II Mother argues as to J.H. and D.K.H. that the court failed to make the required findings that return of the two minors would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to them based upon testimony of a qualified expert witness and considering evidence of the prevailing social and cultural standards of the tribe as required by title 25 ...