M.C. v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 3/5/24 M.C. v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

M.C., C099444

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP- 2020-0000422) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent;

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner M.C., mother of the dependent minor A.C. (minor),1 seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate orders of respondent juvenile court terminating her

1 Minor’s three siblings were also subjects of the dependency but are not parties to this writ proceeding.

1

reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.)3 Petitioner contends that the inquiry made by respondent juvenile court and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) into minor’s potential Indian heritage was insufficient and failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We issued a stay of the section 366.26 hearing in the respondent juvenile court pending resolution of this writ petition and shall now issue a preemptory writ of mandate directing the respondent juvenile court to vacate the ICWA findings and conduct further proceedings to determine whether the ICWA inquiry and notice requirements have been met. We dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts as they are unnecessary to our resolution of the issues. Instead, we discuss the relevant facts where necessary in our discussion of the issues. DISCUSSION Petitioner contends further inquiry of relatives and extended family members regarding minor’s potential Indian heritage is necessary to meet the requirements of the ICWA. We agree. This dependency proceeding commenced in Los Angeles County in 2014. At that time, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) social worker completed Indian child inquiry forms (ICWA-010) indicating minor had no known Indian ancestry. At the February 7, 2014, detention hearing, petitioner and minor’s father F.C. (father) provided the court with parental notification of Indian status