In re E.C. CA1/5

Filed 4/14/25 In re E.C. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re E.C., et al. A171473 Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Alameda County Super. ___________________________________ Ct. Nos. JD-036064-01 and JD-036065-01) ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.V., Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant V.V. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to five-year old E.C. and two-year old M.V. following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.2 Mother’s

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) 2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code unless otherwise specified.

1

appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, stating that she found no arguable issues.3 Mother did not file a supplemental brief, and our own independent review of the record has revealed no arguable issues. We therefore dismiss the appeal. A. Detention/Jurisdiction/Disposition Proceedings On March 21, 2023, the Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300 on behalf of then three-year old E.C. and her two-month old half-brother, M.V. E.C. and M.V. have the same mother but different fathers. The petition alleged that E.C. and M.V. were at substantial risk of physical harm or injury due to mother’s past and possibly ongoing substance use. The whereabouts of M.V.’s father and E.C.’s father were unknown. In its detention report, the Agency noted that mother “reported that her family has Native American ancestry” but that the tribe was unknown. The report stated that notice would be sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).4 It was unknown whether the fathers had Native American ancestry or tribal affiliation in their families. At the detention hearing, mother stated that she had Native American ancestry on her maternal side but did not know the tribe. The juvenile court ordered the Agency to follow up on mother’s claim of Native American ancestry pursuant to ICWA and to