In re G.D. CA2/4
Opinion
Opinion
Currey, J.
INTRODUCTION
The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over G.D., the child of D.M. (mother)1 and S.D. (father) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b).2 The court found father violated, and mother failed to enforce, a restraining order requiring him not to have contact with G.D. except during monitored visits. It therefore found the parents placed G.D. at substantial risk of serious physical harm, given father’s history of: (1) inflicting domestic violence on mother; (2) substance abuse; and (3) convictions for drug-related and violent crimes. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court placed G.D. with mother under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services (Department). It also found the Department had satisfied its duties of inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA). Further, while the Department had yet to receive responses to ICWA-030 notice forms it had sent to two tribes, the court found no further analysis into the Department’s compliance with ICWA was required because G.D. was placed with mother. On appeal, father contends: (1) the juvenile court prejudicially erred…