Here is the opinion in In re S.B., from the California Court of Appeals, 2d District.
An excerpt:
An attorney practicing dependency law in the juvenile court should be sufficiently familiar with ICWA notice requirements to point out a flaw in notice if the record shows that there is one-especially when specifically asked to do so. One court has observed that “trial counsel for a parent in dependency proceedings rarely brings ICWA notice deficiencies to the attention of the juvenile court. That job, it seems, is routinely left to appellate counsel for the parent.” ( In re Justin S. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436.) That practice ignores the importance to a child’s well-being in achieving permanence as soon as possible. The court in Justin S. “implore [d] counsel for the Department, and certainly counsel for the minor, to make more robust efforts, early on in dependency proceedings,” to insist on adherence to the ICWA notice requirements. ( Ibid.)
We agree, and add that counsel for the parents bear a responsibility to raise prompt objection in the juvenile court to any deficiency in notice so that it can be corrected in a timely fashion. This will best serve the interests of the dependent children, the Indian tribes, and the efficient administration of justice.
Turtle Talk 