In re E.V. CA5

Filed 8/9/22 In re E.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F084230 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JVDP-21-000057) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION D.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Annette Rees, Judge. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Boze, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

D.B. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights over her son E.V. (born July 2019) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Her sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. The agency concedes error and the parties have stipulated to an immediate limited remand for the purpose of complying with the inquiry provisions of ICWA. Accordingly, we conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order but remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA and related California law. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On March 23, 2021, the agency filed a petition on behalf of E.V. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging he was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness due to the parents’ substance abuse problems. Eliseo V. (father) was listed as E.V.’s presumed father. The petition included an Indian Child Inquiry Attachment (ICWA-010(A)) form indicating the social worker asked mother and father about Indian ancestry and they gave him no reason to believe E.V. was or could be an Indian child. The parents also completed Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) forms indicating they did not have Indian ancestry. The detention report stated ICWA may not apply as both parents reported they did not have Indian ancestry. On March 24, 2021, at the detention hearing, the juvenile court stated it received the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and found ICWA did not apply. All subsequent reports