In re S.Z. CA3

Filed 11/27/23 In re S.Z. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

In re S.Z. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C098304 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- AGENCY, 2022-0000182)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.Z.,

Defendant and Appellant.

J.Z. (father), father of five minors, ranging in ages from seven years old to six months old (the minors), appeals from the juvenile court’s findings and orders terminating reunification services as to father. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 395.)1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

Father’s sole contention on appeal is that we must remand for further Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance because the initial inquiry by the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) was insufficient. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) Because the ICWA issue is premature, we will dismiss the appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because the issue on appeal is limited to ICWA compliance, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedure. It suffices to note that on May 31, 2022, the minors were taken into protective custody by the Agency, and on June 2, 2022, the Agency filed a petition alleging that the minors came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect, after the second oldest minor, then five years old, was hospitalized and tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Subsequently, at the August 30, 2022 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court took jurisdiction over the minors and ordered that reunification services be provided to father and mother.2 The detention report indicated that the investigating social worker asked father and mother about possible Native American ancestry, and both parents denied any Native American ancestry. Subsequently, both parents provided parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020) forms, asserting they had no Native American ancestry. The Agency’s reports reflect that it identified several of the minors’ relatives and communicated with at least the maternal grandmother, but the reports do not indicate whether the Agency inquired with any of these extended family members about the minors’ potential Native American ancestry. On May 30, 2022, the Agency inquired of both parents regarding Native American ancestry, noted that the parents reported that they did not have any such ancestry, and reported there was no reason to believe that the