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.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. B.P

August 31, 2011

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



(Super. Ct. Nos. SCSCJVSQ095090301, SCSCJVSQ095090401, SCSCJVSQ095090601)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.

In re C.P.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Mother, B.P., appeals from an order made at the 12-month review hearing returning the children to father's physical custody. She contends (1) the trial court erred in conducting the 12-month review under Welfare and Institutions Code*fn1 sections 364 and 366.21, subdivision (f), rather than section 361.2, subdivision (b); (2) there was no substantial evidence to support returning the children to father's physical custody; and (3) the Siskiyou County Human Services Department (Department) did not provide adequate information and proper notice to the relevant tribes under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

We conclude the juvenile court did not err in conducting the 12-month review hearing, and that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's order. Nonetheless, we will reverse and remand to correct the inadequate ICWA notice.

Because the relevant background for the 12-month review hearing and custody order is distinct from the background involving the ICWA notice claim, we will provide the background in the discussion of each claim.

I

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in conducting the 12-month hearing under sections 364 and 366.21, subdivision (f). She argues the applicable statute is section 361.2, subdivision (b).

Sections 364 and 366.21 are the two statutes under which review hearings occur. A 12-month review hearing must take place pursuant to one of those two statutes. Nonetheless, the juvenile court and the parties were clear that the standard to be applied in making the custody determination was the best interests of the children. We find no error.

Relevant Background

Mother and father, Ch.P., had three children, C.P., D.P. and J.P. Beginning in 2007, there were multiple substantiated allegations of general neglect, failure to protect, and unsanitary living conditions. In 2007 and 2009, the parents agreed to participate in voluntary services.

In July 2009, mother left the home because of father's "emotional, verbal and sexual abuse." Mother filed for divorce and sought a restraining order against father. Mother could not provide for the children at that time, so she left them in father's custody.

In August 2009, the police department received a complaint about then four-year-old C.P. playing on the balcony. The home smelled of spoiled food, urine, dirty clothes and rotten garbage. It was littered with open urine soaked diapers, "trash, human feces, moldy food, children's drinking cups and cleaning supplies." It was unsanitary and ...


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.