In re A.B. CA3

Filed 10/7/24 In re A.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re A.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C099269 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD240796, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD240926)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

M.B., father of minors A.B. and N.B., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders entered at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing placing minors in a permanent plan of guardianship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into minors’ possible Native American heritage under the Indian Child

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department does not dispute that the inquiry in this case was inadequate and asks that the juvenile court’s orders be conditionally affirmed subject only to full compliance with ICWA. We shall conditionally reverse for further ICWA compliance. BACKGROUND On September 1, 2020, the Department filed a nondetaining section 300 petition on behalf of minor A.B. On September 15, 2020, the Department filed a first amended petition, alleging that A.B. came within section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) due to her parents’ ongoing domestic violence. The Department obtained a protective custody warrant to take A.B. into protective custody. At the September 22, 2020, detention hearing, father’s and mother’s appointed counsel denied that either parent had Native American heritage. Father’s counsel filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status (Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020) (ICWA- 020) form indicating that father had no Native American ancestry. In October 2020, the Department communicated again with mother, and she denied any Native American heritage. On October 30, 2020, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of minor N.B. Prior to filing the petition, the Department asked mother about possible Native American ancestry, and she gave no reason to believe that N.B. may be an Indian child. The Department also obtained a protective custody warrant and placed N.B. into protective custody. At the November 3, 2020, detention hearing for N.B., parents’ appointed counsel represented that neither parent had Native American ancestry. Both father’s counsel and mother’s counsel filed ICWA-020 forms indicating that parents had no Native American heritage. The juvenile court found no reason to know and no reason to believe that N.B. was an Indian child and concluded that ICWA did not apply. On November 4, 2020, father repeated to the Department that he had no Native American ancestry.