In re A.M. CA1/3

Filed 11/15/24 In re A.M. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES A170824 BUREAU, (Contra Costa County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. J2300115) v. T.W., Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant T.W. appeals from an order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 He contends the Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA). We agree and conditionally reverse.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

BACKGROUND The Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Shasta County) received a referral alleging the mother was homeless,2 did not have sufficient items to care for A.M., made negative statements about A.M., and had a history of mental health issues and substance abuse. A different individual, C.M., was listed as the father on A.M.’s birth certificate. Shasta County subsequently filed a petition alleging A.M. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300 based on the mother’s substance and alcohol abuse, anger management, and mental health issues. The petition noted C.M.’s whereabouts were unknown. At the subsequent detention hearing, the court found the petition true and detained A.M. At that time, the mother denied having any Indian ancestry. Both the mother and C.M. submitted ICWA-020 forms, in which they denied having any Indian ancestry. In an ICWA-010 form attached to an amended petition filed by Shasta County, it noted there was “no reason to believe [A.M.] is or may be an Indian child.” In connection with the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, Shasta County filed a report that noted C.M. was not A.M.’s father and identified T.W. as A.M.’s alleged father. In a subsequent addendum report, a social worker for Shasta County reported T.W.’s Indian ancestry was unknown, and he was reportedly residing with the paternal grandfather. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court granted C.M.’s motion to rescind paternity and found T.W. to be the alleged father of A.M. The court also found that ICWA did not apply. The court returned A.M. to