In re N.E. CA3

Filed 1/23/25 In re N.E. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

In re N.E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C100946 Court Law.

TEHAMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL (Super. Ct. Nos. 23JU000057, SERVICES, 23JU000058)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.B., father of minors N.E. and A.E., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders entered at the six-month review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 366.21, subd. (e), 395.)1 Father contends (1) the juvenile court did not find that return of the minors to parental custody would create a substantial risk of detriment, and (2) the Tehama County Department of Social Services (Department) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into

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

1

the minors’ possible Native American heritage under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The Department does not oppose a limited remand to ensure compliance with ICWA.2 We will vacate the juvenile court’s September 6, 2023 preliminary finding that ICWA does not apply and remand the matter for further ICWA compliance proceedings. We will otherwise affirm the challenged orders. BACKGROUND In June 2023, the Department removed the minors (born in May 2019 and February 2018) from their mother’s custody. It was noted at the time that the minors may be members of, or eligible for membership in, the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of the Chico Rancheria. The minors were detained, and the juvenile court ordered father to have visitation with the minors three times a week, up to five hours total. Prior to the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the Department reported that mother’s adult daughter had cared for the minors for most of their lives, until a few months prior to their removal. Father was present at the birth of the minors but did not have custody of them. At the time of the Department’s report, father was seeking custody of the minors, but he believed visitation center staff members were biased against him. Visitation center