In re A.L. CA3

Filed 3/22/23 In re A.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097110 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239875) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Y.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Y.S. (mother), mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the juvenile court did not make a finding, as required by section 366.26 and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

(ICWA), that continued custody of the minor would likely result in serious physical or emotional damage to the minor. The Sacramento Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) concedes the error. We will accept the Department’s concession and reverse and remand for limited proceedings in compliance with the ICWA. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the background of this case is unnecessary given the limited nature of mother’s claim. The facts and procedures relevant to the sole issue on appeal are as follows: The newborn minor was removed from mother’s care and placed in protective custody due to mother’s “ ‘active untreated mental health with violent tendencies.’ ” It was initially determined that the ICWA did not apply. In June 2019, pursuant to a dependency petition filed by the Department, the juvenile court took jurisdiction over the minor and ordered the minor removed from mother’s care and custody. The court terminated mother’s reunification services in December 2020 and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Over the course of the proceedings, it was determined that the minor was indeed an Indian child whose biological father was a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The minor was eventually placed with her maternal aunt pursuant to the court’s order to place the child according to the ICWA placement preference. The contested section 366.26 hearing commenced on September 12, 2022. The parties stipulated to qualification of Spirit Grey Bull (Ms. Grey Bull), as an expert witness for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Ms. Grey Bull testified she reviewed a number of the Department’s reports, she was knowledgeable about the tribal customs of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and she believed the Department made active efforts and provided appropriate services to mother in an attempt to alleviate the issues associated with removal of the minor. It was her opinion that the parents’ conduct was unacceptable by the standards of culture within the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Ms. Grey Bull further