In re J.S. CA3

Filed 7/9/24 In re J.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C099767 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239939) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant is the father of minor J.S. Father appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Father contends that the initial inquiry under the Indian Child

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

1

Welfare Act (ICWA) by the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) was insufficient because the Department failed to contact known relatives to inquire whether they knew of possible Native American ancestry. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department does not dispute that further ICWA compliance is warranted. We agree. BACKGROUND On February 26, 2021, the Department filed a nondetaining petition alleging that minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. The Department asked father as well as minor’s mother, A.V., about possible Native American ancestry. Father provided a Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form, denying any such ancestry. Mother provided the form with respect to a half sibling of minor, also denying Native American heritage. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court inquired of both parents regarding possible Native American ancestry, which they denied. The court then found that there was no reason to believe that minor was an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. Minor was released to mother following the initial detention hearing. After a subsequent referral, minor was placed into protective custody. The Department filed a supplemental petition regarding minor under section 387. Over the course of the dependency case, the Department did not make any inquiry of extended maternal or paternal relatives about any potential Native American heritage, including a number of relatives that the Department knew of and referenced in its reports. At the contested selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, the court terminated parental rights as to mother and father. Father and mother each filed a timely notice of appeal. Mother subsequently failed to file an opening brief, and her appeal was dismissed.