In re J.A. CA6

Filed 3/30/23 In re J.A. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the H050310 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21JD026965) SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.A.,

Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant J.A. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights as to J.A.2 Respondent Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) and Father jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the juvenile court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and request that we remand the matter to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.) 2 Because father and child have the same initials, we refer to appellant as Father

and the child as J.A. for clarity.

ensuring compliance. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. After J.A tested positive for methamphetamine at birth, the Department filed an application for a protective custody warrant pursuant to section 340 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 In the application, the Department represented that it “has not inquired about Indian heritage because . . . the mother declined to answer questions related to ICWA.” The juvenile court granted the Department’s application and issued an order for protective custody. The Department filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging that J.A. was at risk of serious physical harm due to mother’s untreated substance abuse issues.4 At the initiation of the proceedings, the Department interviewed Father to ascertain possible Native American ancestry. Father identified his ethnicity as “Hispanic and Chumash Indian.” He reported that he was “a quarter Chumash” and that his mother (J.A.’s paternal grandmother) was “half Chumash.” Father stated that he was “not an enrolled member of the tribe,” but that his paternal great-grandfather was a member. Father also believed that his mother had received some form of payment from the Chumash tribe, though he was not certain whether she was an enrolled member. Based on its interview with Father, the Department determined that there was reason to believe that J.A. was an Indian child. The Department made additional inquiries into J.A.’s possible Native American heritage. The Department asked J.A.’s paternal grandmother for a complete family lineage to identify possible Chumash ancestry. The Department also sent a letter to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, inquiring whether J.A. was a member or eligible