In re O.S. CA2/6

Filed 8/17/23 In re O.S. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN RE O.S., et al., 2d Juv. No. B325469 (Super. Ct. Nos. 21JV00209, Persons Coming Under The 21JV00210) Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Barbara County) _____________________________

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.S. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children O.S. and A.S. with a

permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) Father’s sole contention is that Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2).2 We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father is the presumed parent of O.S. and A.S. CWS filed a section 300 petition after father surrendered the children to social workers in May of 2021. The juvenile court ordered both children detained. Father and mother denied Indian ancestry at the detention hearing. The juvenile court ordered father and mother to provide CWS with a list of maternal and paternal relatives. It did not make findings on whether ICWA applied. The jurisdiction and disposition report stated mother participated in a family assessment on June 25, 2021, but did not answer her phone when the agency called four days later to conduct a family finding interview. She did not return the social worker’s voicemail. The agency located no maternal relatives using LEXIS but eventually reached a maternal aunt and maternal great aunt who denied Indian ancestry. Voicemails to three maternal cousins were not returned. The agency spoke with the paternal grandmother, but the jurisdiction and