In re M.A. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 26, 2023 No. C097037Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court conditionally affirmed the termination of parental rights and remanded for limited proceedings because the Agency failed to fulfill its duty to inquire about the minors' potential Indian ancestry from known extended family members.

Issues

Did the Agency satisfy its initial duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) regarding the minors' potential Indian ancestry?
Did the juvenile court err by failing to make an ICWA finding on the record?
Was the failure to conduct an adequate ICWA inquiry harmless error?

Disposition. conditionally affirmed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court and the Agency have an affirmative and continuing duty, beginning at initial contact, to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child.”

“The Agency either did not take sufficient affirmative steps to investigate the minors’ possible Indian ancestry or did not document its efforts to do so.”

“In the absence of evidence of the Agency’s efforts to fulfill its continuing duty of inquiry, we cannot say the failure of ICWA compliance was harmless.”

Filed 6/26/23 In re M.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C097037 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- AGENCY, 2021-0000201)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

L.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant L.B. (mother), mother of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act

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

of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We will conditionally affirm and remand for limited ICWA proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issue on appeal is limited to compliance with the ICWA, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and non-ICWA related procedural history. The minors, M.B., M.A., Jr., X.A., and H.A. (ages four, two, four months, and four months, respectively) were detained after infant H.A. was admitted to the hospital with numerous physical injuries consistent with child abuse. M.A. (father) is the father of the three younger minors.2 The Agency filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minors pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e), (g), and (j). The Indian child inquiry form (ICWA- 010) attached to the petition stated inquiry had been made of mother and there was no reason to believe the minors were Indian children. Mother and father identified several relatives as possible placements for the minors, including maternal grandmother, paternal aunt, and paternal grandmother to half sibling M.B. According to the Agency’s detention report, the names and phone numbers of those relatives were sent to social worker Sia Vang to start the emergency relative placement assessment process. At the detention hearing on May 21, 2021, the court inquired of mother and father regarding Indian heritage, advised them of the ICWA requirements, and instructed them to complete parental notification of Indian status forms (ICWA-020). Thereafter, the parents filed completed ICWA-020 forms denying any Indian ancestry. The

In re M.A. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief