In re K v. CA3

Filed 2/18/16 In re K.V. CA3 /NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C079070 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD235753) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.C., father of the minor, appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 360, 395 [unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code].) Appellant contends the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) failed to comply with the

1

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the trial court erred in finding the ICWA did not apply in this case. Appellant further contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s order to bypass his services. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The minor, K.V., was born in mid February 2015. On February 25, 2015, the minor was removed from his mother’s care and put in emergency protective custody. Appellant was incarcerated. Two days later, the Department filed a petition to remove K.V. from parental custody due to mother and appellant’s drug abuse and inability to care for the minor due to their drug abuse and appellant’s incarceration. The minor was placed in confidential foster care. Appellant acknowledged the minor was likely his child, denied having issues with drugs and alcohol, and expressed a desire to “establish paternity and be active in the child’s life once he is no longer incarcerated.” On February 11 and February 27, 2015, respectively, both mother and appellant denied having any Indian heritage. On March 3, 2015, appellant filed his notice of Indian status, indicating he may have Indian ancestry. That same day, the juvenile court found insufficient evidence to determine whether the minor is an Indian child. The court also ordered appellant to complete and return the “Indian Ancestry Questionnaire” to the Department within two days and ordered the Department to provide notice to any federally recognized tribes. The minor continued in foster care and the court ordered no visitation to take place between appellant and the minor “while [appellant] is incarcerated and until paternity has been established.” On March 27, 2015, appellant executed a voluntary declaration of paternity declaring himself to be the father of the minor. The juvenile court thus determined appellant to be the minor’s presumed father.