In re J.A. CA3

Filed 5/20/15 In re J.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C078215 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD234823) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

S.A., mother of the minor, appeals from orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Mother argues the court and the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We reverse and remand with directions.

1

FACTS In June 2014, the court ordered the two-month-old minor, J.A., detained due to mother’s continued contact with father knowing of his propensity for violence. Mother is unable to care for the minor without assistance. Father has a history of anger and violence. The parents failed to engage in court-ordered services in two prior cases involving the minor’s siblings and parental rights to the siblings were terminated in 2013. The detention report stated the siblings were being adopted by a paternal relative. Father completed an ICWA-020 form (Parental Notification of Indian Status) by checking a box which stated: “I may have Indian ancestry” but did not identify a tribe. On the form, father explained: “Doesn’t know -- not able to get information.” The court ordered the Department to notice any federally recognized tribes and ordered father to complete an Indian Ancestry Questionnaire and return it to the Department within two days. A July 1, 2014, declaration filed by a paralegal who has responsibility for the ICWA notice stated father’s questionnaire had not been received and his tribe was unknown. The paralegal called father at three different numbers and finally left two voice messages but had no response. The paralegal sent notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with what little information was available for the minor and the parents. A second declaration filed July 21, 2014, provided the return receipts and the response from the BIA. The July 23, 2014, jurisdiction/disposition report stated that notice was complete. The July 23, 2014, report stated father declined an interview with the social worker. The report stated there were no relatives to consider for placement. In August 2014, the court sustained the petition and took the disposition under submission. In September 2014, the court found the ICWA notice was proper and the ICWA did not apply. The court bypassed services for both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing.