In re S.T. CA1/4

Filed 7/21/15 In re S.T. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re S.T., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, A144447

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. J1300331) K.B. et al., Defendant and Appellant.

K.B. (Mother) and D.T. (Father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order of legal guardianship made at a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 with respect to their daughter (S.T.). The sole contention by both parents on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) failed to comply with the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The Bureau concedes that ICWA was not properly complied with at the time of the hearing. Because the parties agree that ICWA procedures were not followed, we conditionally reverse the order and remand the case for compliance with ICWA notice requirements.

1

I. BACKGROUND We summarize only those facts relevant to the ICWA claim raised on appeal. The Bureau’s initial Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition, filed on March 15, 2013, noted that S.T. “may have Indian ancestry.” At the detention hearing on March 18, 2013, at which Judge Baskin presided, Mother completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form indicating she has Cherokee heritage. (See Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-20.) Upon review of that form, the court asked Mother to “tell [him] more about that.” Mother explained that her “mom’s grandmother” was “full- blooded Cherokee Indian” and was “a card carrying member.” Mother also said that her own mother (S.T.’s maternal grandmother and the person with whom S.T. was placed) would have any additional the information on the subject of S.T’s Indian heritage. The court responded, “Okay. All right. Then that will be the order that I’m making today.” On the written Findings and Orders After Detention Hearing form, a box was checked acknowledging that S.T. “may be [¶] an Indian child and the county agency must provide, as required by law, notice of the proceeding and of the tribe’s right to intervene in the proceeding to all identified tribes and to the Bureau of Indian Affairs if the identify [sic] or location of a parent, an Indian custodian, or a tribe cannot be determined. Proof of such notice must be filed with this court.” (See Judicial Council Forms, form JV-410, Item No. 18(a).) The court did not, however, make clear and explicit findings as to ICWA, or order the Bureau, on the record, to comply with ICWA notice procedures. A second judge, Judge Haight, was assigned to the remainder of the case, except a May 7, 2013 jurisdictional hearing handled by a third judge, Judge Hardie, at which both parents pleaded no contest to an amended petition and agreed to participate in services. Judge Hardie did not address ICWA at the jurisdictional hearing. At the dispositional hearing on June 4, 2013, Judge Haight found S.T to be a dependent of the court, removed her from the custody of the parents, ordered out-of-home placement, and ordered reunification services for both Mother and Father. Without mentioning the ICWA