In re D.S. CA3

Filed 7/7/21 In re D.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re D. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C093165 Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. SERVICES AGENCY, STKJVDP20160000208)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M. L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is the second appeal filed by mother (M. L.) after termination of her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) In the previous appeal, this court conditionally reversed and remanded for limited proceedings to ensure compliance with the Indian

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). In this appeal from the juvenile court’s orders reinstating the orders terminating her parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption, she again contends the juvenile court and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the requirements of the ICWA. Mother having refused to cooperate in securing ICWA compliance and having further failed to object to ICWA compliance at the limited ICWA proceeding on remand, we find her claim forfeited and affirm the orders terminating her parental rights. BACKGROUND Because the sole issue on appeal is ICWA compliance upon remand, we provide an abbreviated factual and procedural background. On May 4, 2016, the Agency filed a section 300 petition on behalf of D. (then age seven) and W. (then age three). The petition was also filed on behalf of the minors’ two siblings, who are not subjects of this appeal. The petition alleged the minors and their siblings came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (e) (severe physical abuse), (g) (no provision for support), (i) (cruelty), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The minors were detained. Mother stated she did not know if she had Native American ancestry but said she would check with her family. She completed an ICWA-020 form claiming possible Native American ancestry but not listing a tribe. Thereafter, during a June 3, 2016 interview, mother stated her paternal grandmother was “full blood” Native American and her maternal grandmother has Native American heritage from Mississippi, but mother did not know with what tribes either were affiliated. The juvenile court took jurisdiction, adjudged the minors dependents, ordered them removed from parental custody, and provided parents reunification services. The ICWA-030 notice, filed with the court on September 21, 2016, contained information for mother, minors’ fathers, the minors’ maternal grandmother and grandfather, and the minors’ maternal great-grandmother and great-grandfather. This information included the fact that the maternal grandmother resided in Sacramento, but did not provide an