In re J.S. CA3
Filed 8/12/25 In re J.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----
In re J.S. et al., Minors. C102615
C.S., (Super. Ct. Nos. 23AD00182, 23AD00183) Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
J.B.,
Objector and Appellant.
J.B. (mother) appeals from family court orders terminating her parental rights and declaring J.S. and K.S. (collectively, minors) free from her parental control on the basis of abandonment under Family Code section 7822.1 Mother contends: (1) the orders must be conditionally reversed due to lack of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.
1
Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the family court’s finding that she abandoned minors within the meaning of section 7822. We conclude a limited remand to comply with ICWA and related California law is necessary. I. BACKGROUND J.S. and K.S. were born in 2016 and 2018, respectively. D.S. (father) and mother never married, but they lived together until the end of 2019. Father sought custody of minors in early 2020 after mother overdosed on drugs while watching minors. At the end of 2021, mother’s supervised visits with minors were terminated after she failed a drug test. As relevant to this proceeding, in August 2022, Amador County Superior Court granted father full legal and physical custody of minors. Mother was ordered to not have any contact or visitation with them. The court ordered, “If [mother] wishes to make any changes to child custody, she must undergo a full psychological evaluation by a licensed doctor and have an established treatment plan in place.” Father married C.S. (stepmother) in September 2023. Later that year, stepmother filed stepparent adoption requests and petitions to declare minors free from mother’s parental custody and control for stepparent adoption due to abandonment under section 7822. The petitions alleged mother had not had any contact with minors since December 2021. Father consented in writing to the petitions and completed parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020) forms indicating minors had no Indian ancestry. Stepmother also submitted ICWA-010(A) attachments indicating she had inquired of a sister and an aunt to minors, and these inquiries gave her no reason to believe minors had Indian ancestry. The record indicates an ICWA-020 form was not filled out for mother because she could not be located. A court investigator conducted an investigation regarding stepmother’s petition. The investigator did not have any contact information for mother, and therefore did not
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)