In re W.R. CA4/3
Filed 07/14/23 In re W.R. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re W.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G062231 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22DP0548, v. 22DP0548A, 22DP0549, 22DP0549A, 22DP0550 & C.V., 22DP0550A)
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
In re D.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22DP1363) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v.
A.M. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Isabel Apkarian, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant C.V. Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.M. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * C.V. (Mother) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders concerning three of her children, W.R., M.V., and D.V., claiming the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to comply with its inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and related 1 California law. A.M., D.V.’s father, asserts a similar challenge as to D.V. SSA concedes that its ICWA inquiry was insufficient and that remand is necessary under this court’s precedent. We agree and therefore conditionally reverse and remand for SSA to comply with its duties under ICWA. FACTS I. Overview of the Proceedings Below In May 2022, SSA filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on behalf of W.R. (age 12) and M.V. (age 10), alleging, inter alia, that A.M. had sexually abused W.R., and that Mother had failed to protect her, used excessive 2 discipline against the children, and failed to ensure their educational needs were met. The juvenile court detained the children, and they were placed with their maternal
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)