Court Opinion

ID: 9409027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 17:04:22.197456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.467263
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/14/23 In re D.W. CA2/2
              NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                  SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

In re D.W., a Person Coming                                     B325908
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No.
                                                                22CCJP01410A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

C.M.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

      C.M. (Mother) appeals a juvenile court order terminating parental
rights to her daughter D.W. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Appointed
counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47

         1
       Undesignated statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
Cal.4th 835, 844–846.) Mother’s supplemental brief does not cite the record
or legal authority, or show any arguable issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal.
                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Mother has a history of dependency court involvement. In 2021, the
court terminated parental rights to her daughter J.W. The sustained petition
arose from Mother’s substance abuse, untreated mental condition, and her
abandonment of three-month-old J.W., first in a store and then in the middle
of a street. Mother also lost custody of a son born in 2014.
       Before D.W.’s birth, in April 2022, police brought Mother to the hospital
after she had an altercation and removed her clothing at a nail salon. At the
hospital, she removed her gown and insisted on being naked. When Mother
gave birth to D.W., she tested positive for marijuana, verbally abused nurses,
threw a COVID-19 test swab, resisted having blood drawn, refused to wear a
pad and was bleeding on the bed, floor, and herself, and defied hospital policy
that newborns sleep in a bassinette. Mother admitted using marijuana
several times daily while pregnant.
       A social worker (CSW) from Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) learned that Mother is bipolar, does
not take medication for her condition, and is violent and verbally abusive.
She sent threatening messages to D.W.’s father and said she planned to sell
D.W. for $40,000. The paternal grandmother reported that Mother is violent.
D.W.’s father said Mother “had breakdowns constantly,” destroyed property,
was violent, and often went nude in public.
       The court issued an order to remove D.W. from Mother, who refused to
relinquish the baby. Law enforcement came to the hospital to assist. Mother
appeared to have severe mental health issues. D.W. was placed with her
sister J.W., who lives with adoptive parents; the family wishes to adopt D.W.
as well. At the end of April 2022, Mother had a manic episode and was
assessed for hospitalization.
       In May 2022, Mother went to Hawaii. She told CSW she was on
vacation but was in a psychiatric ward in Honolulu. She refused to take
medication, saying “ ‘I don’t need it.’ ” In June 2022, Mother was hospitalized

                                       2
in Georgia for a dog bite, then removed from a flight to Los Angeles after
causing a ruckus.
       Mother did not visit D.W. from April 30 to May 30, 2022, while
involuntarily hospitalized. When she visited D.W., they had little interaction
and there did not appear to be a bond between them. Mother missed most
drug tests from April to mid-July.
       In July 2022, the court sustained an amended petition, finding Mother
has mental health and substance abuse issues; failed to reunify with J.W.;
endangered D.W. by sleeping with the baby in her hospital bed; and engaged
in domestic violence with D.W.’s father. (§ 300, subds. (b), (j).) At disposition
in August 2022, D.W. was declared a dependent of the court and removed
from both parents. The court found that the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA) notices and investigation are complete, and there is no reason to
believe ICWA applies. It bypassed reunification services and set a
permanent plan hearing. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)–(11).)
       In October 2022, Mother enrolled in a program that provides therapy,
substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes. A counselor told CSW in
November 2022 that Mother has mental health problems and was trying to
“fire” program staff members. She was barred from group sessions for
causing disruptions.
       In December 2022, Mother petitioned for a modification, seeking
custody of D.W. or reunification services. She claimed mental stability and
cited her recent participation in services. The court summarily denied the
petition because there was insufficient evidence of changed circumstances,
Mother has unresolved mental health issues, and modification is not in
D.W.’s best interest.
       At the permanent plan hearing on December 8, 2022, Mother objected
to termination of parental rights, citing the parent-child bond exception. She
testified that she visits D.W. for four hours per week, plays with the baby and
tends to all her needs. D.W. is happy to see Mother and cries when she
leaves. D.W.’s father was in favor of adoption.
       The court found D.W. adoptable, identified adoption as the permanent
plan, found that no exceptions to the legislative preference for adoption
apply, and terminated parental rights. (§ 366.26.) Mother appealed.

                                       3
                                 DISCUSSION
       Mother’s supplemental brief does not cite the record or relevant case
law. Her factual statements conflict with the record. For example, she
writes that she vacationed in Hawaii. However, the record shows a social
worker in Honolulu told DCFS that Mother was in a psychiatric ward; CSW
spoke to Mother, who said she would be released “ ‘very soon.’ ” Mother later
said she went to Hawaii because “ ‘elite people in LA were trying to kill me.’ ”
When she arrived, people spoke in “ ‘demonic tongue’ ” and police took her
from the airport to the hospital.
       Mother’s discussion of alleged mishandling of J.W.’s case is not
germane to this appeal, which only involves D.W. The record shows she has
a minimal bond with D.W., who was removed from Mother at birth and only
knows the prospective adoptive parents. Mother made no progress in
addressing her issues and refuses to use psychotropic medication despite
multiple involuntary hospitalizations.
       Mother contends that DCFS and the court proceeded with the case
without giving proper notice to Indian tribes. The court ordered an ICWA
inquiry after both parents reported Indian ancestry. None of the tribes
mentioned by the parents indicated that D.W. is an Indian child, in response
to notices sent by DCFS.
       During Mother’s prior case, the court found in 2020 that ICWA did not
apply to D.W.’s sibling, J.W. At the time, Mother claimed Cherokee ancestry
through her father, who told DCFS he believed he had Apache heritage.
Notices were sent. No tribe indicated that the parents or child are enrolled or
eligible for enrollment. In the current case, the court noted the prior finding
in J.W.’s case that ICWA did not apply, following a full investigation. The
court stated that DCFS “already noticed all of the Apache tribes.”
       DCFS sent notices to eight Apache tribes, without a positive response,
and spoke repeatedly to family members about Indian ancestry. Mother was
“adamant that her maternal great-grandfather is a registered member of the
Yavapai-Apache Nation.” The tribe responded that Mother’s relatives “are
not members of the Yavapai-Apache Nation.” Mother claimed to have an
enrollment number but refused to provide it to DCFS.

                                       4
       Mother later claimed her great grandfather was a member of the
Chiricahua Apache Nation, but the tribe denied membership. A sub-group
Mother mentioned is not federally recognized. (In re Wanomi P. (1989) 216
Cal.App.3d 156, 166–167 [ICWA only applies to federally recognized tribes].)
Mother next claimed her relative was “affiliated with the Colville Tribe.”
DCFS sent notice and the Colville Tribe denied any affiliation.
       The juvenile court recited DCFS’s many efforts to establish tribal
membership. It found that Mother’s shifting accounts of Indian ancestry are
“a delay tactic.” The record shows no reason to believe D.W. is an Indian
child, i.e., a member of a tribe or eligible for membership and the biological
child of a tribe member. (§§ 224, subd. (c), 224.1, subd. (b).)
       Mother has not provided any reasoned legal argument or authority
showing that the juvenile court’s ruling constitutes reversible error. We thus
deem the appeal abandoned and dismiss it. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13
Cal.4th 952, 994.)
                                 DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

__________________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.               CHAVEZ, J.               HOFFSTADT, J.

                                      5