In re B.R. CA3

Filed 9/16/22 In re B.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

In re B.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095916 Law.

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. 53005134) AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.L., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. 1 (Welf. & Inst. Code,

1 Father also filed a notice of appeal but did not file an opening brief. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed on June 23, 2022. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.412(d)(1)(A)(iii) & (2).)

1

§§ 366.26, 395.)2 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that we must conditionally reverse for further Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance because the initial inquiry by the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that the ICWA does not apply. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department concedes the ICWA error and the need for a limited remand for further ICWA compliance but suggests conditional affirmance, rather than conditional reversal. Although mother opposes this remedy, we agree that conditional affirmance of the orders is warranted, subject to further ICWA compliance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issue on appeal is limited to ICWA compliance, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedure. It suffices to say that on December 15, 2020, the Department sought a protective custody warrant and filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the then one-month-old minor based on the parents’ substance abuse. Both parents were present at the January 5, 2021 detention hearing. The juvenile court asked the parents whether their families had any Native American heritage that qualified them or the minor to be a registered tribal member. Mother responded “no” and father stated, “I don’t believe so.” The court directed the parents to inform the social worker if they received any new information regarding the minor’s Indian heritage, and found the ICWA did not apply. The minor was ordered detained. The report prepared for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing stated that both parents were asked again (telephonically by the social worker) about Indian ancestry on January 11, 2021, and both parents “continued to decline [sic] any knowledge of Native American hertiage [sic].” The six-month review report stated that on July 15, 2021,