In re J.D. CA4/3

Filed 7/18/23 In re J.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G062373 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DP0174) v. OPINION MICHELLE S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Gerard, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor. * * *

Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of 1 Michelle S. (the mother) regarding J.D. (the child). (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) As to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the court found it did not apply, and further found the Orange County Social Services Agency (the Agency) had fulfilled its obligation to do initial ICWA inquiries as to whether the child was of Indian ancestry. The mother appeals. She contends the juvenile court’s ICWA findings are in error. We hold there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply (i.e., there is no reason for the court to know the child is an Indian child). We further hold the court was not arbitrary and/or capricious when it determined the Agency fulfilled its initial inquiry obligations under ICWA. Thus, we affirm the order.

I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 6, 2020, police officers entered a hotel room where they observed methamphetamine within the reach of a four-year-old boy. Police arrested the mother and took the child into protective custody. The Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition. On February 11, 2020, during a detention hearing, the juvenile court found Christopher D. to be the presumed father of the child. However, Christopher D. later denied being the child’s father, which was confirmed through a paternity test. The mother subsequently identified another man as the child’s possible father, but that man denied knowing the mother and did not participate in genetic testing. On July 9, 2020, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court declared the child a dependent, removed him from the