In re P.V. CA3

Filed 8/5/22 In re P.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re P.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C094930 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD240819) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.V., father of the minor (father), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Father contends the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). The Department

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

1

concedes the issue. We will accept the Department’s concession and conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s judgment subject to full compliance with the ICWA. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 Amador County Proceedings The minor was removed from the parents after testing positive for amphetamine and opiates at birth. The Amador County Department of Social Services (Amador Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The Amador Department’s inquiry of mother revealed she and the minor were enrolled members in a tribe not federally recognized for purposes of the ICWA. Father initially stated he believed he had Indian ancestry but “ ‘not enough to count.’ ” He agreed to contact relatives for further information, but subsequently filed an ICWA-020 form stating he had no known Indian ancestry. The Amador Department attempted to contact the paternal grandfather, J.V., to inquire about the family’s potential Indian heritage, to no avail. The jurisdiction and disposition reports noted father’s denial of Indian ancestry. The disposition report identified a number of relatives, including the paternal grandparents, the paternal great-grandmother, the paternal aunt, and several other individuals. The reports made no mention of the Amador Department’s attempts to contact or make ICWA inquiries of those individuals. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the court sustained the petition, determined the minor to be a dependent of the juvenile court, ordered the minor removed from the parents’ custody, and found the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA.