CA5

In re Kyle v. CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 2015F070666California4,659 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In March of 2013, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) alleged that one-year-old Kyle V. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), due to mother’s and father’s substance abuse and incarceration. At the detention hearing, mother stated she had no Indian heritage. Father claimed to have Inuit heritage, and the juvenile court ordered ICWA notices to be sent. Kyle was initially placed in nonrelative foster care and, on April 5, 2013, was placed with mother’s brother, Roger B., and his wife, Adrian B. At jurisdiction/disposition on May 24, 2013, mother and father submitted on the social worker’s report; the section 300, subdivision (b), allegations were found true; and the subdivision (g) allegations were dismissed. The juvenile court found that proper ICWA notice had been given. Kyle was removed from parental custody and reunification services were provided to mother and father. On June 10, 2013, pursuant to a request for an ex parte finding, the juvenile court found that proper ICWA notice had been given, no determinative evidence had been received within 60 days of proper notice, and Kyle was not subject…

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.