In re R.R. CA5

Filed 12/15/22 In re R.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F084256 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 19JP-00193-A, Plaintiff and Respondent, 19JP-00193-B)

v. OPINION S.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

S.B. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights over R.R. (born March 2018) and B.R. (born February 2019) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Her sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law because the agency failed to inquire of known extended family members whether they had Indian ancestry.2 The agency concedes error and the parties have stipulated to an immediate remand for the purpose of complying with the inquiry provisions of ICWA. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA and related California law. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On December 16, 2019, the agency filed an original petition under section 300 on behalf of R.R. and B.R. pursuant to subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Aaron R. was listed as the children’s alleged father. The petition alleged the parents had a history of untreated methamphetamine use and domestic violence and that mother had a history of untreated mental illness. The petition further alleged mother’s minor son3 was removed from her custody in June 2015 and that she reunified in May 2017. In June 2018, mother’s minor son and R.R. were removed from mother and Aaron’s custody. They reunified with R.R. and the case was dismissed in July 2019. Mother’s minor son was released to her father’s custody.