Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re C.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. B.R

May 3, 2011

IN RE C.R. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SISKIYOU COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
B.R., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. SCSCJVSQ095085701, SCSCJVSQ095085801)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch, J.

In re C.R.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

B.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's orders terminating her parental rights and setting the matter for adoption as to K.R. (an 11-year-old girl), and creating a legal guardianship with the specific goal of adoption as to C.R. (a 13-year-old girl). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)*fn1

Mother contends: (1) the record fails to show that proper notice was given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)); (2) the court erred by failing to make a visitation order as to C.R.; and (3) the court erred by terminating mother's parental rights as to K.R. because the sibling relationship exception to adoption applied.

Respondent Siskiyou County Human Services Department (the Department) concedes the first two points, but asserts that the sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply. Agreeing with the Department on all three issues, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to ICWA and direct the juvenile court to make a specific order of visitation as to C.R. We affirm the court's orders in all other respects.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is the second appeal in this case. In our opinion filed in the first appeal, which we judicially notice (Evid. Code, § 459), we considered mother's claims of error arising out of the jurisdiction/disposition hearings and the six-month review hearing. (In re C.R. et al. (Jan. 31, 2011, C062568/C063776 [nonpub. opn.]).) We take the facts through that point in the proceedings from our prior opinion.

Proceedings Through the Six-Month Review Hearing

The minors, then 11 and nine years old, were detained in May 2009 after mother left them alone at home in filthy and unsafe conditions while she went out drinking with acquaintances. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.)

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minors formally detained. The court found that the minors' alleged fathers (ex-husbands of mother who lived out of state) were presumed fathers. Because mother claimed Cherokee ancestry, the court ordered an ICWA inquiry. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.)

At the jurisdiction hearing in June 2009, the juvenile court found the allegations of the section 300 petition true. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.) Mother signed a mediation agreement obliging her to participate in alcohol and drug assessment, follow recommended treatment, visit the minors twice a week, continue individual counseling, take prescribed medication, attend parenting classes, and go to at least three 12-step meetings a week. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.)

At the contested disposition hearing in July 2009, the juvenile court ordered the minors' current foster home placement continued, with reunification services for mother and the fathers.*fn2 The court found ICWA inapplicable because the noticed tribes had all responded that the minors were not members or eligible for membership. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.)

Before the six-month review hearing, the Department reported that the minors were doing well in foster care and their foster parents would consider guardianship or adoption should reunification fail; however, both minors still wanted to live with mother. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.) Mother had made "moderate" progress on her case plan, but had also gone through a series of unhealthy relationships with men, had been involved in repeated episodes of violence, had not found stable housing, and had not yet shown significant improvement as to substance abuse. (In re C.R. et al., supra, C062568/C063776.)

At the contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minors' continued placement in foster care and further reunification services to mother. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.