In re J.E. CA4/1

Filed 6/13/24 In re J.E. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D083614 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J520368) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Ja.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alexander M. Calero, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Ja.E. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating

parental rights to her son, J.E. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 366.26.) Mother contends, and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) concedes, that the Agency failed to comply with its initial inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). The parties also agree that the juvenile court erred by relying on a prior ICWA finding in J.E.’s sibling’s case to determine that ICWA was inapplicable to the proceedings. We accept the Agency’s concession, conditionally reverse the order terminating Mother’s parental rights, and remand for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA and its related statutory provisions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In December 2020, the Agency petitioned the juvenile court on behalf of J.E. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The Agency included an ICWA-010(A) form with its petition that indicated the Agency had interviewed M.J. (Father), and he provided no reason to believe J.E. was Native American as defined by ICWA. The Agency also informed the court that in a dependency matter involving J.E.’s sibling, a juvenile court previously found, without prejudice, that ICWA did not apply to the proceedings. Consequently, the Agency opined that ICWA was not applicable to J.E.’s case.