In re J.T. CA4/1

Filed 7/7/25 In re J.T. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085465 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4750B) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alexander M. Calero, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.B. Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.T.

Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Mother M.B. and Father D.T. appeal from the juvenile court’s findings and orders terminating parental rights over their child J.T. at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. They raise four contentions that the Health and Human Services Agency failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The Agency concedes error as to two contentions, and we conclude the Agency partially erred as to the others. Thus, resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the Agency’s concessions and conditionally reverse and remand. I. In March 2022, the Agency filed a petition under section 300(d), alleging a member of the household sexually abused the child. At the detention hearing, the court found ICWA did not apply. The maternal grandfather was present in person for a July 2022 hearing, but the court made no ICWA inquiry that day. The social worker was also present in person, but there is no documentation of the Agency asking the grandfather about Native American ancestry on that day. The record is silent as to any Agency efforts to reach the maternal grandfather after the hearing or to obtain his contact information, if needed. During the September jurisdiction hearing, a social worker testified the paternal uncles who were in the home with the paternal grandmother denied Native American ancestry. Although the testimony did not specify which of three paternal uncles the social worker interviewed, we infer they were Michael and Jason, who resided in San Diego with paternal grandmother and