In re M.F. CA3
Filed 10/29/24 In re M.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C100650 Law.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD242334) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S.W. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Both parents of the minor M.F. appeal from the juvenile court’s March 8, 2024, orders terminating their parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Both parents argue the Sacramento County Department of Child,
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
Family and Adult Services (Department) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the minor’s possible Native American heritage under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and request remand. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department does not oppose the request. We will conditionally reverse for further ICWA compliance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We limit our recitation of the background to information necessary for disposition of the issue on appeal. In January 2023, the Department filed petitions alleging that the newborn minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. In January 2023, mother, father, and maternal grandmother each denied having any Native American heritage. During the detention hearing later that month, the juvenile court detained the minor and found there was no reason to believe the minor was an Indian child. The court directed the Department to comply with its duty under ICWA to inquire with available family and extended family members. The Department filed an ICWA compliance report in February 2023. The social worker had attempted to call paternal great-grandmother, maternal grandmother, and maternal great-grandmother to inquire further about Native American ancestry, but she had not yet reached any of them. The social worker had again spoken with mother, who mentioned she might have Native American ancestry but then said she did not. Mother provided names and locations of family members and agreed to fill out a family tree. Meanwhile, father told the social worker he might have Native American ancestry with the Navajo tribe, through the paternal great-grandfather. He provided names and locations of family members and agreed to fill out a family tree. The report included a list of the limited known information about father’s relatives. According to this list, paternal grandfather and paternal great-grandfather were each deceased and their dates of birth, places of birth, and exact dates of death were unknown.
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)