In re E.T. CA2/6

Filed 3/15/22 In re E.T. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re E.T. et al., Persons 2d Juv. No. B315176 Coming Under the Juvenile (Super. Ct. Nos. 20JV00280, Court Law. 20JV00281) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Monica T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Monica T. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights to her minor sons, E.T. and M.T. She contends the termination orders should be conditionally vacated and the case remanded for the proceedings to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2014, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights to E.T. and M.T.’s elder siblings, J.M. and Z.T. The court also terminated the parental rights of Z.T.’s father, John T. (Father). During the termination proceedings, both Mother and Father denied having any Indian ancestry. The court found that ICWA did not apply. In 2020, E.T. and M.T. were removed from Mother’s custody. Mother and Father met with a social worker regarding their sons. During that meeting both parents said that they had no known Indian ancestry. At their initial court appearances, the juvenile court asked if Mother and Father had Indian ancestry. They said that they did not. The two filed ICWA-020 forms claiming no such ancestry. At the detention hearing, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) asked the juvenile court to find that ICWA did not apply. Neither Mother nor Father contested the request. The court found ICWA inapplicable. Two weeks later, a CWS social worker filed forms stating that Mother and Father had given her no reason to believe that either they or their sons had Indian ancestry. At the six-month review hearing, CWS again asked the juvenile court to find ICWA inapplicable. When no party contested the request, the court made that finding. It then terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights to E.T. and M.T. and selected adoption as the permanent plan. DISCUSSION Mother contends the orders terminating her parental rights should be conditionally vacated because CWS did not