In re C.J. CA1/3

Filed 7/5/22 In re C.J. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

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

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A164646 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J21-00140) C.J., Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 C.J. (Father), father of minor C.J., appeals from orders denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3882 and terminating his parental rights under 366.26. Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau)

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

failed to comply with its duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C., § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and related California law (§ 224 et seq.) to conduct an initial inquiry into whether C.J. was an Indian child. C.J. was the subject of an April 2021 dependency petition alleging he was at risk of serious physical harm due to the chronic substance abuse of his mother, T.H. (Mother). (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) Mother indicated in her ICWA- 020 form that she had no Indian ancestry. Father did not complete an ICWA- 020 form and indicated that he did not know if he had Indian ancestry. Based on these statements from the parents, the Bureau recommended in its disposition report that the juvenile court find that ICWA does not apply. At the June 2021 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that C.J. was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and that “there is no reason to believe or know the child is an Indian child and ICWA does not apply.” After further proceedings, the juvenile court denied Father’s section 388 petition requesting reunification services and terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights.3 On appeal, Father contends the Bureau did not comply with its duty to conduct an initial inquiry into whether C.J. was an Indian child because the Bureau failed to inquire with extended family members, such as paternal grandmother and maternal great aunt, both of whom were in contact with the Bureau during the proceedings. In a responsive letter, the Bureau concedes “there is not a record of a proper initial ICWA inquiry regrading C.J.” Accordingly, the Bureau does not oppose a conditional reversal and remand to permit ICWA compliance.