In re L.C. CA3

Filed 3/23/22 In re L.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C094535 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD239750, JD239751)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAR.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Mar.C. (mother) and Man.C. (father), parents of the minors, appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 The parents claim the juvenile court erred in

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

1

failing to find termination of parental rights was detrimental to and not in the best interests of the minors where tribal authorities indicated a preference for guardianship for the enrolled minor. We disagree and will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the background of this case is unnecessary given the limited nature of the parents’ claim. The facts and procedure relevant to the sole issue on appeal are as follows. The minors, L.C. (then three years old) and her half sibling T.C. (then five years old), came to the attention of the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) after reports that the parents had a history of, and had recently been engaging in, domestic violence in the presence of the minors. The minors were removed from the parents, and the Department filed dependency petitions on behalf of the minors pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The juvenile court ordered the minors detained and that they remain placed in the home of the maternal cousin and her husband, where they had been staying pending the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. The court found Man.C. to be the presumed father of L.C., and also found that R.M. “may be the adjudicated father” of T.C. Mother and Man.C. denied any Indian heritage with respect to L.C. and the court found L.C. was not an Indian child for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). As for T.C., mother informed the social worker that R.M. had Indian heritage with an unknown tribe. In May 2019, the court sustained the allegations in the petitions and exercised jurisdiction over the minors, adjudged L.C. a dependent of the juvenile court, and ordered continued out-of-home placement for L.C. with reunification services and visitation for the parents. The following month, the court adjudged T.C. a dependent of the juvenile court and ordered continued out-of-home placement and reunification services for mother. The court also reviewed R.M.’s parental notification of Indian status indicating