In re J.Q. CA3
Filed 3/27/23 In re J.Q. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----
In re J.Q., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C096652 Law.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STK-JD-DP-2021-0000189)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant A.G. (mother), mother of the minor, J.Q. (minor), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the San
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because the Agency did not contact extended family members to inquire about the ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts of this case are not at issue, and we do not recite them in detail. We limit our recitation of the background to those facts relevant to the ICWA inquiry and notice requirements. On May 6, 2021, father of the minor, G.Q. (father), and mother (collectively, parents), brought six-week-old J.Q. to the hospital with multiple unexplained injuries. The minor was taken into protective custody. The parents were subsequently arrested for felony willful cruelty to a child, infliction of great bodily injury, and felony infliction of injury on a child. They remained incarcerated in the local jail pending criminal trial for the remainder of the dependency case. On May 11, 2021, the Agency filed a petition regarding the minor, alleging serious physical harm under section 300, subdivision (a); failure to protect under section 300, subdivision (b)(1); and severe physical abuse under section 300, subdivision (e). As to the child’s Indian heritage, on May 7, 2021, the investigating social worker asked the parents at the hospital about possible Native American ancestry, and both denied any Native American ancestry. Based on this information, the social worker filled out an ICWA-010 form stating that there was no reason to believe that the ICWA applied to the minor. Subsequently, at the detention hearing, the juvenile court inquired with the parents about possible Native American ancestry and each replied, “No.” On June 18, 2021, the Agency filed the ICWA-020 forms completed by the parents on May 7, 2021, which reflected mother’s and father’s response that they did not have Native American ancestry.
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)