In re N.W. CA4/1
Filed 2/15/23 In re N.W. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re N.W. et al., Persons Coming D080974 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH (San Diego County AND HUMAN SERVICES Super. Ct. No. EJ4771A-B) AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
E.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
Landon Villavaso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Jesica N. Fellman, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
E.C. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights for her son, A.R.1 Mother’s sole claim on appeal is that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes that a limited remand is appropriate to ensure ICWA compliance. We accept the Agency’s concession, conditionally reverse, and remand for compliance with ICWA. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2022, the Agency initiated this dependency proceeding under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 subdivision (b)(1)2 on behalf of A.R. and N.W. The Agency alleged there was a substantial risk the children would suffer serious physical harm due to violent physical altercations in the family home between Mother and her male companions. The Agency also alleged Mother relapsed on alcohol after completing a substance abuse treatment program, continued to use alcohol to excess and was unable to provide regular care for the children. The Agency’s detention report stated that Mother and N.W.’s father denied any Indian Ancestry. Later that month, Mother and N.W.’s father both filed a parental notification of Indian status indicating no Indian ancestry. The Agency was unable to determine if A.R.’s father has Indian ancestry because he is deceased. At the June 2022 detention hearing, based
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)