In re V.B. CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Sep 11, 2025 No. B343351Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parent cannot use an appeal from a post-permanency section 388 petition to collaterally attack a legal guardianship order entered eight years prior, and that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error.

Issues

Whether a parent may collaterally attack a long-standing legal guardianship order via an appeal from a subsequent section 388 petition based on alleged ICWA inquiry errors.
Whether the appellant met the burden of providing an adequate record to demonstrate ICWA inquiry error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“mother cannot collaterally attack the order of legal guardianship through this appeal from an order entered eight years later.”

“The appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively demonstrating error, and when an appellant fails to supply a record adequate to review a claim, the claim fails.”

“by failing to timely appeal from the court’s legal guardianship order, mother forfeited her right to challenge the court’s implied ICWA finding made as part of that order.”

Filed 9/11/25 In re V.B. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re V.B, a Person Coming Under the B343351 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK97904C) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MICHELLE R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robin R. Kesler, Referee. Affirmed. Jesse Frederic Rodriguez and Giselle Marie Achecar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Courtney Fisher, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

V.B. (born in September 2010) was placed in a permanent plan of legal guardianship in 2016 after her parents, Michelle W. (mother) and L.D. (father) failed to reunify. More than eight years later, in 2024, mother filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition seeking to terminate the legal guardianship and reinstate mother’s reunification services and unmonitored visitation. The juvenile court denied mother’s petition without a hearing, and mother appealed. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the order of legal guardianship should be conditionally reversed because the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not conduct an adequate inquiry into V.B.’s possible Indian ancestry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law. As we discuss, mother cannot collaterally attack the order of legal guardianship through this appeal from an order entered eight years later. We therefore affirm the order denying mother’s section 388 petition.

In re V.B. CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MICHELLE R.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

ADAMS, J.

AI Brief