In re A.M. CA2/5

INTRODUCTION

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 alleging that now five-year-old F.M., now nine-year-old H.M., and now 17-year-old A.M. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. As ultimately sustained, the section 300 petition alleged under subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (j) (abuse of a sibling) that H.M.’s father, V.G., sexually molested H.M. On appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to F.M. and H.M. and its order appointing legal guardians for A.M. pursuant to section 366.26, D.M. (mother) contends that because the Department failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA or Act) (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.), the juvenile court erred in finding that the ICWA did not apply.2 With respect only to H.M., father joins mother’s appeal and also contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply.…