In re B.O. CA3

Filed 4/11/25 In re B.O. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re B.O. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C101821 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- AGENCY, 2023-0000184)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant, father of minors B.O., C.O., and Bl.O., appeals from the order of the juvenile court entered at the 12-month review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21, subd. (e), 395; statutory section references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) His sole contention on appeal is that the orders must be reversed for failure to adequately comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1900, et seq.) (ICWA). Because the juvenile court had not yet made an ICWA finding at the time of this appeal, and the ICWA inquiry is still ongoing in that court, we will dismiss the ICWA claim on appeal as premature and affirm the orders of the juvenile court from which this appeal was taken.

1

We dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedure as unnecessary to our resolution of the limited issue on appeal. It is sufficient to say that in May 2023, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 dependency petition on behalf of the minors and their half siblings, who were with a maternal aunt. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction of the minors, adjudicated them dependent children of the court, ordered them removed from parental custody, and provided reunification services for the parents. At the outset of the dependency proceedings, mother denied known Indian ancestry and signed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020 form) confirming her denial of Indian ancestry. Father filed an ICWA-020 form on July 25, 2023, that he signed but otherwise left blank. The Agency later reported that father’s form also denied known Indian ancestry. Although the minors’ maternal grandparents are deceased, both parents identified several living relatives. The maternal aunt with whom the minors were placed completed an ICWA-020 form denying Indian ancestry. In May 2024, the Agency conducted a search for additional maternal relatives and sent ICWA inquiry correspondence to those family members. No responses had been received by the August review hearing. The Agency concedes there is no record indicating it sent similar correspondence or otherwise contacted paternal relatives to inquire about possible Indian ancestry. The Agency did not request, nor did the juvenile court enter, findings regarding the adequacy of the Agency’s inquiry or the applicability of the ICWA. Father argues we must conditionally reverse the orders entered at the 12-month review hearing because the Agency’s inquiry into the minors’ possible Indian ancestry was not sufficiently complete. The Agency concedes that ICWA inquiry was not complete at the time of the hearing. It was awaiting responses to notices it had sent to maternal relatives and had not inquired of known paternal relatives about the minors’ possible Indian ancestry.