In re J.V. CA3

Filed 4/24/23 In re J.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097072 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241746) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant A.W., mother of the minor J.V., 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 juvenile court and the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), because the Department did not contact extended family members to inquire about the ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department concedes the ICWA error and the need for a limited remand for further ICWA compliance but suggests conditional affirmance, rather than conditional reversal. We agree that conditional affirmance of the orders is warranted, subject to further ICWA compliance. I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts of the dependency are not at issue, and we do not recite them. We limit our recitation of the background to those facts relevant to the ICWA inquiry and noticing requirements. On January 11, 2022, the newborn minor was taken into protective custody following a report that mother tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of the minor’s birth. The Department filed a petition alleging that the minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect, and section 300, subdivision (j), abuse of sibling. The detention report showed that the investigating social worker asked mother about possible Native American ancestry prior to the filing of the section 300 petition. Without elaboration, the detention report states that mother “denied having any Native American heritage.” At the January 13, 2022, initial detention hearing, mother named B.V. as the minor’s father but stated that she was not married and that B.V. was not present for J.V.’s birth. The juvenile court found that B.V., who was not present for the hearing, was the minor’s alleged father. The court inquired regarding the mother’s ancestry, and mother’s counsel indicated that she did not have any Native American ancestry. Mother also provided a Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form, stating she had no Native American ancestry. The court found there was no information that the ICWA applied, but the Department was ordered to continue to make