In re P.B. CA2/8

Filed 9/13/23 In re P.B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re P.B. et al., Persons Coming B323390 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County Superior LOS ANGELES COUNTY Court No. 22CCJP01323A-B DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Linda L. Sun, Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ Six months after a mother moved her young daughters from Texas to California, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services initiated dependency proceedings. By then, the girls’ father was incarcerated in Texas for failing to register as a sex offender. The California juvenile court eventually assumed jurisdiction over the children, declared them dependents, removed them from parental custody, and denied the father visitation and reunification services. The father appealed, but not the mother. Regarding the father, the juvenile court sustained allegations the father had sexually abused both girls, including one occasion where he taped one daughter’s mouth closed, “fondled the child’s vagina and buttocks with [his] fingers” and tried to lick her there, and another occasion where he penetrated his other daughter’s vagina with a coat hanger. The father’s appeal challenges none of these findings. Instead, the father contends the juvenile court’s acts exceeded its authority because the court did not comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) (UCCJEA). He also claims, as to various paternal relatives, the court and the Department violated their inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) (ICWA). We affirm regarding the former claim and do not reach the second because