In re J.B. CA3

California Court of Appeal Sep 24, 2015 No. C077866Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court correctly determined the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply because the minor did not meet the statutory definition of an Indian child, and that the Department provided sufficient active efforts to assist with potential tribal enrollment.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in finding that the ICWA did not apply and that further notice was not required.
Whether the Department failed to provide active efforts to secure tribal membership for the minor.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court correctly determined, pursuant to section 224.3, subdivision (e)(1), that ICWA did not apply and that further notice of ongoing hearings was not required.”

“The requirement to provide active efforts applies only to an Indian child. At the time of the review hearing and later at the section 366.26 hearing the minor did not meet the ICWA definition of Indian child and no “active efforts” were required.”

Filed 9/24/15 In re J.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C077866 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD233717) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

T.T. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

T.T. and John B., parents of the minor, appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395 [unless otherwise stated, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) The parents contend that the court erred in making a finding at the six-month review hearing

that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.) did not apply to the case and ordering that further notice need not be sent to the tribe. The parents also argue that the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to provide active efforts in that it did not assist the minor in securing membership in the tribe. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The Department filed a petition to remove six-week-old J.B. from parental custody in August 2013. The petition alleged mother had a drug problem, had used drugs while pregnant with the minor, failed to comply with informal services and her current whereabouts were unknown. The minor was placed with the maternal grandmother. At the detention hearing on September 4, 2013, the court ordered the minor detained and directed the Department to make a paternity inquiry. The maternal grandmother told the court there was no Indian heritage on the maternal side. The report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing said the social worker had not had any contact with either parent. However, father appeared at the September 26, 2013, prejurisdiction status conference and informed the court he had both Sioux and Creek ancestry. Father completed the ICWA-020 form regarding his Indian status and asked for a paternity test. At the November 7, 2013, hearing, the court found father to be the minor’s biological father and directed the Department to provide notice to the relevant tribes. The court subsequently entered a judgment of paternity. At the next hearing in November 2013, father was present and reviewed the ICWA-030 notice form for accuracy. Father informed the court he was an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation but had lost his card. The Department filed an ICWA declaration in November 2013 which stated the social worker spoke to the paternal aunt who is an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and said that father enrolled about the same time she did. The paternal

In re J.B. CA3

AI Brief

COPY

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

III

DISPOSITION

BUTZ , J.

DUARTE , J.

AI Brief