In re J.B. CA4/1

Filed 1/17/25 In re J.B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084596 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J521040)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael P. Pulos, Judge. Affirmed. William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief County Counsel and Evangelina Woo, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant C.C. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her child, J.B. (Child). Child, who was 12 at the time, was removed from Mother’s custody after suffering physical abuse by Mother and sexual abuse by Mother’s boyfriend. “[W]hile intoxicated, . . . [M]other blamed the child for the sexual abuse inflicted on . . . [C]hild by [M]other’s boyfriend,” and Mother “slapped and hit . . . [C]hild multiple times in the face and neck area, and hit . . . [C]hild’s left arm multiple times while . . . [C]hild was trying to block being hit in the face resulting in . . . [C]hild having a contusion of the nose and a closed head injury.” Mother “ha[d] a long history of alcohol abuse and according to [Child], this was not the first time her mother ha[d] hit her and called her names.” Attempts at reunification failed and, following a Welfare and

Institutions Code2 section 366.26 hearing, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Child would be adopted and terminated Mother’s parental rights. The court designated Child’s caregiver, a paternal aunt (Aunt), as her prospective adoptive parent. Mother first argues the court abused its discretion by failing to order a tribal customary adoption (TCA) in lieu of terminating parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(vi)(II).) However, TCA is only an alternative to termination if the tribe “has identified” TCA as a permanent plan for the child. (Ibid.) Child’s tribe, Navajo Nation (the Tribe), did not recommend TCA, but rather supported the proposed adoption by Aunt. We conclude