M.C. v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 2/7/23 M.C. v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

M.C., C096846

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- 2020-0000422) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent;

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner M.C., mother of the dependent minor, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate orders of the juvenile court terminating her reunification services and setting a

1

hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.)2 Petitioner contends the respondent juvenile court failed to properly conduct a hearing on her request for new appointed counsel. She also contends that the inquiry made into the minor’s potential Indian heritage was insufficient and failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.) We issued a stay of the section 366.26 hearing in the respondent juvenile court pending resolution of this writ petition and shall now issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the respondent juvenile court to vacate the ICWA findings and conduct further proceedings to determine whether the ICWA inquiry and notice requirements have been met. We reject petitioner’s remaining contention. We dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts as they are unnecessary to our resolution of the issues. Instead, we discuss the relevant facts where necessary in our discussion of the issues. DISCUSSION I Request for New Appointed Counsel Petitioner’s counsel contends the petition must be granted to provide further hearing on petitioner’s August 17, 2022 request for new appointed counsel. Petitioner’s counsel expressly “does not claim that on this record the Respondent Court should have granted the . . . motion.” Instead, counsel argues the respondent juvenile court mishandled the motion and a new hearing should be conducted “if Mother still wishes it.” As an initial matter, it is troubling that petitioner’s counsel is apparently unaware of petitioner’s wishes with respect to the instant petition. Although counsel is authorized