In re R.C. CA3

Filed 6/28/22 In re R.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re R.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C094893 Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STK-JV-DP-2019-0000315)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Mother and father of the minor R.C. appeal from the juvenile court’s September 2021 order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother and father both contend conditional reversal is required

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

1

because the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) and the court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) They also argue that the court erred in terminating parental rights without a proper ICWA finding. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issues on appeal concern ICWA compliance, we limit our factual and procedural recitation to that issue. In August 2019, the Agency filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor (born in October 2018). In the August 2019 detention report, the Agency advised the juvenile court there was no reason to believe the minor is or may be an Indian child . The Agency also reported that paternal grandmother was willing to care for the minor. That same month, mother submitted the “Parental Notification of Indian Status” form (ICWA- 020) and checked the box stating she had no known Indian heritage. During the August 2019, detention hearing, the court asked mother whether she had Indian ancestry, and she responded, “No.” Father, who was incarcerated, was not present during the hearing. The court ordered that the minor be detained. Since father was incarcerated, the Agency mailed him the ICWA-020 form with detailed completion instructions. Father submitted the completed form in September 2019, checking the box stating he had no known Indian heritage. In October 2019, the court found the allegations in the petition to be true and took jurisdiction over the minor. Mother and father were both present during the hearing; the court did not ask father whether he had Indian ancestry. In December 2019, the court adjudged the minor to be a dependent of the court. The court ordered reunification services for mother but not for father. In the June 2020 status review report, the Agency noted that mother and father had both indicated they had no Indian heritage, and there was no reason to believe minor was an Indian child. The Agency asked the court to find that minor was not an Indian child.