In re F.V. CA3

Filed 8/3/22 In re F.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 F.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C095017 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- AGENCY, 2021-0000070)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.V. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional findings and orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 She contends the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements

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

1

of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because the Agency did not contact extended family members to inquire about the ICWA. She further contends the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to condition modification of its visitation order concerning the minor, F.V.,2 upon mother’s completion of substance abuse treatment and counseling. We conclude that the ICWA issue is premature, and the juvenile court did not err in its visitation order. Accordingly, we shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issues on appeal are limited, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedure. On February 22, 2021, the Agency filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minors F.V. (born October 2011) and M.N. (born September 2015) alleging the minors came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b), failure to protect; subdivision (c), serious emotional damage; and subdivision (g), no provision for support. In the detention report, the social worker reported that there was no reason to believe F.V. was an Indian child as defined by the ICWA because both mother and F.V.’s father, A.V., stated there was no Native American ancestry in their respective families. As to M.N., the social worker reported that M.N.’s father, J.N., reported possible Native American ancestry through his paternal line. The social worker reported that father J.N. completed an ICWA-010 form, and an ICWA-030 form would be completed after the petition was filed. At the February 23, 2021, detention hearing, the juvenile court found A.V. was the presumed father of F.V., and J.N. was the alleged father of M.N., pending paternity testing. The court then ordered the minors detained in protective custody. The court