In re B.R. CA3

Filed 9/30/22 In re B.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re B.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C094405 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STKJVDP20160000359)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant T.C., mother of the minors, B.R-D., Y.T., L.W., and J.W. (collectively, the minors), appealed from the juvenile court’s order denying her request that the court place the minors with C.T., maternal grandmother of the minors (grandmother). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.3, 388, 395; statutory section citations that follow are found in the

1

Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.) However, on April 12, 2022, while briefing was ongoing in this matter, this court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of placement in the home of grandmother. On this basis, mother conceded in her reply brief that her argument regarding the issue of relative placement with grandmother has been finally determined by this court’s decision. Mother’s sole remaining contention is that the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Because the issue on appeal is limited to ICWA compliance, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedures. B.R-D. and Y.T. and their younger maternal half siblings, L.W. & J.W. were removed from mother’s care in May 2020, by the Agency following the death of their stepsibling, B.W. The court later sustained allegations under subdivisions (a), (b)(1), (f), (g), and (j) of section 300, regarding mother T.C. and stepfather Bi.W. (stepfather). At a July 9, 2020, jurisdictional hearing, father of B.R-D (father R-D.), appeared and informed the juvenile court that he had Native American ancestry, but when questioned by the court, he stated that he did not know the tribe and that all of his relatives who might have additional information were deceased. The Agency later filed a jurisdictional report, dated September 28, 2020, incorrectly indicating that father R-D. had stated to the court on July 9, 2020, that there was no Native American ancestry on the paternal side of the family and that in a prior 2016 dependency case, the court found ICWA did not apply to any of the four children. In a March 15, 2021, detention report, the Agency reported that there was no reason to believe the minors were Indian children within the meaning of the ICWA. The report noted that mother, stepfather, and father of Y.T. (father T.), stated that they did not