In re Z.B. CA4/1

Filed 10/7/25 In re Z.B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D086048 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ15920A&B) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alejandro Morales, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. David Smith, Acting County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

Mother R.E. appeals orders issued at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearings for her children, Z.B. and V.B., which terminated her parental rights and selected adoption as the children’s permanent plans. Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred by finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1 et seq.) did not apply to the children’s cases because the San Diego Health and Human Services Agency did not comply with its duties of initial inquiry under ICWA. We conclude the court did not err and therefore affirm. I. A. In March 2023, the Agency filed a petition under section 300(b) to declare Z.B., then two years old and having tested positive for fentanyl, a dependent of the juvenile court. In its attached ICWA-010(A) form, the Agency indicated it had reason to believe Z.B. is or may be an Indian child based on its inquiry of the paternal grandmother, who informed the Agency both she and the deceased paternal grandfather had unidentified Indian ancestry. In its detention report, the Agency attached a number of Father’s arrest reports, including a 2021 arrest report indicating a female passenger in Father’s car told him she “used to date [Father’s] cousin.” At the detention hearing, Mother and Father denied Z.B. was or may be an Indian child, so the court deferred its determination of that issue. The court detained Z.B. and ordered the Agency to investigate whether he was or may be an Indian child and report back to the court. In its jurisdiction and disposition report, the Agency described its pending efforts to locate other relatives of Z.B. In an April addendum report, the Agency stated both Mother and Father denied (1) any family member was