In re I.M. CA5

Filed 3/29/22 In re I.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F083432 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. JVDP-19-000246, Plaintiff and Respondent, JVDP-19-000247, JVDP-19-000248)

v. OPINION M.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Angela Cobb, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant M.M. (mother) is the mother of I.M., Mo.M., and Mi.M. (the children), who are the subjects of a dependency case. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights at a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing. Mother’s sole claim is that the juvenile court and the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) failed to comply with the inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C., § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Since mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding, dispositional ruling, or findings supporting its decision to select adoption as the permanent plan and terminate parental rights, a detailed summary of the evidence supporting these rulings is unnecessary. On September 30, 2019, the children were taken into protective custody as a result of mother’s substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, and failure to comply with voluntary family maintenance services. The voluntary services plan involved mother living with the children in the home of the maternal grandparents, but mother failed to comply with various components of this plan. The agency served a protective custody warrant on mother after it was determined the maternal grandparents were unable to protect the children from mother and the alleged father of Mo.M. and Mi.M., Jesus M. The agency filed a petition alleging all three children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm under section 300, subdivision (b), and I.M. under section 300, subdivision (g). The report prepared for the detention hearing indicated that an inquiry of Indian ancestry had not yet been completed. At a detention hearing held October 3, 2019, mother and Jesus M., appeared and were appointed counsel. The presumed father of I.M., Everardo M., was reported to be residing in Mexico. The juvenile court found that