In re Z.S. CA3

Filed 10/21/22 In re Z.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

In re Z.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C095959 Court Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. JV202092, SERVICES AGENCY, JV202093)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

T.S., mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption as to minor A.M. 1 (Welf. & Inst.

1 Minor A.S. is not a party to this appeal. Mother concedes on appeal that the ICWA issue as to Z.S. is not yet ripe and therefore limits her arguments to A.M. only.

1

Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)2 Mother contends the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). We will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issue on appeal is limited to compliance with the ICWA, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedure. It suffices to say that mother has three children, two with a man who is now deceased, and A.M., whose father is P.M. (father). The minors were detained in January 2020, and thereafter became dependents of the juvenile court due to mother’s untreated substance abuse issues and physical abuse of the minors that rendered her unable to adequately care for and protect the minors and placed them at risk of harm. Mother initially denied having any Indian heritage and completed a parental notification of Indian status to that effect. She indicated she had no information regarding father’s location or his possible Indian ancestry. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found the ICWA did not apply as to mother but deferred its finding as to father. The Agency subsequently learned mother had claimed in a previous child welfare case that she may be part of the Pomo Indian Tribe and again asked her about her Indian ancestry based on this new information. She denied Indian ancestry, noting that she had “found out she is not part of the Pomo Tribe because she does not have enough Indian blood.” The Agency was unsuccessful in contacting father, but had contacted his cousin and aunt, both of whom stated they did not think father had any Indian heritage, but denied having any information in that regard.