In re Be.B. CA4/1

Filed 4/3/23 In re Be.B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Be.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D081284 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. SJ12992A-C)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Anna Rak, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Georgia Braun, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION B.B. (Father) appeals from orders terminating parental rights to his children, Be.B., V.B., and Br.B. (the children), at the Welfare and Institutions

Code section 366.261 hearing.2 His sole contention on appeal is that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) did not comply with its inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). The Agency concedes it did not fully comply with aspects of its inquiry duties, and therefore agrees that a limited remand is appropriate. The parties filed a joint stipulation to immediate issuance of the remittitur. We accept the Agency’s concession as to its duties of inquiry and the parties’ joint stipulation, conditionally reverse the order terminating Father’s parental rights, and remand for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA and its related statutory provisions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 In February 2021, the Agency petitioned the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because the parents did not provide them with suitable shelter. Specifically, the petitions alleged there were illegal substances accessible to the children in the family home, and that the parents allowed known drug users and gang members to be in and around