S.B. v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 9/26/23 S.B. v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

S.B.,

Petitioner, C098343

v. (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- 2021-0000121) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent;

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner S.B., mother of dependent minor B.B., petitioned for an extraordinary writ seeking to vacate orders of the juvenile court that terminated her reunification

1

services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.)1 The minor’s sibling and half-sibling are not involved in this proceeding. Mother contends (1) the evidence presented at the review hearing does not support the juvenile court’s finding of substantial risk of detriment to the minor if returned to mother, (2) a last-minute change in recommendation by the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) violated due process, (3) the juvenile court should have considered whether mother is entitled to additional reunification services, and (4) the inquiry made into the minor’s potential Indian heritage was insufficient and failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) This court issued a stay of the section 366.26 hearing pending resolution of mother’s writ petition. Additional background is set forth in our discussion of mother’s contentions. We conclude that although mother’s ICWA challenge is premature, her challenge to the juvenile court’s findings and orders at the March 29, 2023 review hearing has merit. Those findings and orders were incomplete and/or inconsistent, and the juvenile court did not articulate a factual basis for a finding of detriment. Accordingly, we will issue a peremptory writ of mandate vacating the findings and orders entered at the March 29, 2023 review hearing and remanding with directions to the juvenile court to hold a new review hearing and enter new findings and orders. We will vacate the stay previously issued by this court. Given our disposition, we need not address mother’s contentions concerning due process or consideration of additional reunification services.