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 Breanna L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. Timothy L

August 20, 2012

IN RE BREANNA L. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
TIMOTHY L., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. Nos. JD224948 & JD224949)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.

In re Breanna L.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Timothy L. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order of legal guardianship for minors Breanna L. and Stephen L. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)*fn1 He contends the matter must be remanded due to noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We agree and shall reverse as to ICWA only.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Given father's sole contention, we need not recite the facts in detail. Those pertinent to ICWA are set out in the Discussion.

The minors (aged 7 and 8 years old, respectively) were detained in October 2006 because of father's substance abuse problems and the inability of the stepmother, E.L., with whom they were living, to care for them. The minors' biological mother, L. G., was absent.*fn2

Father claimed Iroquois heritage, and notice was sent to the federally recognized Iroquois tribes. After none responded positively within the statutory deadline, the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply.

In January 2007, the juvenile court ordered the minors placed in foster care and granted reunification services to father. His services were terminated in April 2008.

Mainly due to the minors' learning disabilities and behavioral problems, the juvenile court did not adopt a permanent plan under section 366.26 until March 25, 2011. At that time, the court ordered a plan of legal guardianship with the minors' current foster parents. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Father contends we must reverse and remand for further proceedings under ICWA because the tribes did not receive notice of relevant and easily ...


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.