In re A.M. CA3
Filed 9/24/24 In re A.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----
In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C099971 Court Law.
EL DORADO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. 22JD0001) SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Father of minor A.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Father contends the initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by the El Dorado County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) was insufficient because the
1
Agency failed to contact known relatives to inquire whether they knew of possible Native American ancestry. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) We conditionally reverse subject to full compliance with the ICWA and related California law on remand, as described in this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2022, the then two-year-old minor was found in a parked but running vehicle with drugs and drug paraphernalia in her vicinity. Father was passed out behind the wheel while the minor’s mother, who was under the influence of methamphetamine, had gone into a store. Both parents were arrested. El Dorado County Sheriff’s deputies took the minor into custody, and the minor was placed in a licensed resource family- approved home. The Agency filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (g), and (j). At the detention hearing, father claimed potential Native American ancestry through the minor’s paternal grandmother. The court found reason to believe the minor may be an Indian child and ordered the Agency to complete further inquiry. The Agency contacted the paternal grandmother pursuant to its ICWA inquiry. Around the same time, the minor’s paternal great-grandfather filed a JV-285 form with the court providing his contact information. The Agency contacted the paternal great-grandfather to schedule a walk-through of his home to assess it for placement. When the social worker arrived for the inspection, the paternal great-grandfather was not home, and the Agency did not receive any follow-up from him regarding placement. Separately, father reported to the Agency that he had two adult siblings. The Agency sent out a “Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child” (ICWA-030) to the Cherokee Nation, Comanche Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. This notice included information as to the minor’s
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)