In re O.P. CA5

Filed 6/21/16 In re O.P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re O.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F072653 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ300120-2) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION O.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

O.B. (father B.) appeals after the trial court denied reunification services to him for his biological child, O.P. (hereafter the younger child). The only issue is whether the Fresno County Department of Social Services (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA). Father B. contends the Department and the juvenile court were put on sufficient notice to require further inquiry into the younger child’s Indian ancestry, yet failed to conduct any inquiry. We agree and will remand the matter to permit the juvenile court to comply with the ICWA. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Mother had two children by different men. To ease the reader’s task, and protect the identity of the parties, we will refer to the two fathers as Father B. and Father J. We will refer to the two children as the older child and the younger child. Father J. was the biological and presumed father of the older child. Father J. was also the presumed father of the younger child as he was married to mother at the time the younger child was born, although it appears Father J. was incarcerated when the younger child was conceived. Father B. was the biological father of the younger child. The Department’s involvement occurred because of domestic violence history between mother and both fathers. The facts related to the Department’s involvement are not significant to the issue in this appeal, so we need not provide a detailed summary. The juvenile court detained both children, found it had jurisdiction over both children, and ordered both children placed outside the home. Reunification services were awarded to mother, but denied to both fathers. DISCUSSION Father B.’s notice of appeal states that he is appealing the order denying reunification services. However, the only issue raised in his brief is the juvenile court’s failure to comply with the ICWA. The only relief sought is remand to permit the juvenile court to comply with the statutory requirements.