In re F.B. CA3

Filed 9/21/21 In re F.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

In re F.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C092982 Law.

YUBA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. SERVICES DEPARTMENT, JVSQ2000053)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellants M.B. (mother) and R.S. (father), parents of the minor, appeal from the juvenile court’s disposition order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.)1 The parents contend the court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

§ 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) did not apply. Respondent Yuba County Health and Human Services Department (Department) concedes the issue. Finding the ICWA issue is premature, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. BACKGROUND2 On June 29, 2020, the Department filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging a failure to protect by the parents’ inability to provide care due to their mental illness or substance abuse. The petition alleged the parents were involved in a pending dependency case related to the minor’s half-sibling’s and five siblings’ (collectively, siblings) removal resulting from mother’s use of a dog shock collar on the siblings as a form of discipline for potty training because mother was tired of buying diapers, unsanitary conditions in the home, and the parents’ use of one of the sibling’s urine for a drug test because father was afraid he would test positive for marijuana. The petition also alleged that mother gave birth to the minor, her seventh child, several weeks prior and failed to notify the Department of the birth until June 25, 2020. The dependency petition included an Indian child inquiry attachment in which the social worker declared that mother gave the social worker reason to believe the minor was or might be an Indian child. The court ordered the minor detained. The detention report and the jurisdiction report both stated ICWA “does not apply,” but noted that, in the siblings’ case, mother stated she had Cherokee and Nansemond Indian ancestry. Father denied any Indian heritage. On August 18, 2020, the court sustained the allegations in the petition, exercised dependency jurisdiction over the minor, and ordered continued out-of-home placement.