In re Kenneth J.

Filed 11/29/05 In re Kenneth J. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re KENNETH J., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B182508 B184081 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LK02175)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EARLINE J., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn K. Martinez, Commissioner. Reversed and remanded.

Joseph D. Mackenzie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Pamela S. Landeros, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

In these two cases, consolidated for purposes of appeal, mother claims the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). DCFS concedes the inadequacy of its notices, and we reverse and remand for compliance.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Three dependent children of Earline J. are the subjects of these appeals: Kenneth (born in June 1988), I. (born in August 1998), and Iyana (born in June 2001). In case No. B182508, mother appeals from the denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for modification. In case No. B184081, mother appeals from orders granting custody of Inesha and Iyana to their father.

DISCUSSION

The only issue mother raises in either appeal is the failure of DCFS to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of ICWA. DCFS concedes the inadequacy of the notices.

We shall reverse and remand both causes for compliance with the notice requirements of the ICWA. After proper notice, a tribe with an interest in the children may assert its rights under the ICWA and either intervene in the state court, or obtain jurisdiction over the proceedings by transfer to the tribal court. (In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1421.)

Appellant has not challenged the orders of the court on any ground other than failure to comply with the ICWA. Thus, if there is no intervention or assertion of jurisdiction by any tribe after proper notice, the juvenile court’s orders are to be reinstated.

DISPOSITION

The orders are reversed and the causes remanded for compliance with the notice requirements of the ICWA. If, after proper notice, a tribe asserts its right under the ICWA to intervene in the state court, or to obtain jurisdiction over the proceedings by transfer to the tribal court, the cause shall proceed in accordance with the tribe’s election. If there is no intervention or assertion of jurisdiction by any tribe after proper notice, then the juvenile court’s orders shall be reinstated.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P.J.

We concur:

CURRY, J.

WILLHITE, J.

Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.

Campo Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.