In re J.V. CA4/1

Filed 5/28/25 In re J.V. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085329 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15713ABC)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Nadia J. Keilani, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Kristen M. Ojeil, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

R.V. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating

parental rights over his children J.V., M.V., and N.V. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) Father contends the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to investigate and conduct inquiry with the children’s known relatives and did not file Parent Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) forms with the juvenile court, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The Agency concedes the record does not contain sufficient documentation of inquiry with relatives or the ICWA-020 forms. The parties agree the case should be remanded for compliance with ICWA (see In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1136), and they have stipulated to the immediate issuance of remittitur. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the order entered at the section 366.26 hearing and remand for compliance with the inquiry provisions of ICWA and related California law. BACKGROUND The sole issue on appeal is compliance with ICWA; thus, we do not provide a detailed factual background. After Father subjected one of his children to physical abuse, the Agency filed a petition to detain J.V., M.V., and N.V. (§ 300, subds. (a), (j).) There was also a history of physical abuse. The Agency noted on the Indian Child Inquiry Attachment that it asked the parents about any Native American ancestry. But it left blank whether the answers gave it reason to believe there was Native American ancestry. In the detention report, the Agency stated ICWA did not apply because the parents denied Native American ancestry.