In Re Edward H.

Caution
100 Cal. App. 4th 1·122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 242
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 12, 2002F039428California1,692 words

Opinion

Opinion

Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Carrie Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

VARTABEDIAN, Acting P.J.

Cynthia E. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to her children, Brittany, D'Andre, Kiah, Tailour and Edward, Jr. [1] She contends the termination orders were erroneous due to alleged noncompliance with Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C., § 1901 et seq.) notice requirements. She additionally claims the juvenile court failed to find termination would be detrimental and improperly denied her request for a bonding study. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold proper notice to some but not all possible tribes in which a dependent child may be eligible for membership does not violate the ICWA provided the Bureau of Indian Affairs also receives notice pursuant to 25 United States Code section 1912 . On review, we will affirm.

The children in this case, who presently range in age from 5 and one-half to 17 years, have been dependent children of the juvenile court for more than 5 years. The court previously determined they came within its jurisdiction…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.