Court Opinion

ID: 9867795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 17:04:36.081047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:08.666608
License: Public Domain

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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, and
undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                             2
                                       DISCUSSION
                                              I
       Mother contends 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.
       It appears the relevant review hearing was the 18-month review hearing held in
March 2023. At the time of the hearing, the minor’s sibling I.B. was 14 years old and the
minor was 11. In its September 2022 18-month status review report, the Agency
recommended terminating services as to the sibling but returning the minor to mother
with family maintenance services. Mother submitted on the report; father requested a
contested hearing.
       The Agency’s interim report, filed March 1, 2023, reflected that a new social
worker was on the case but that the recommendation remained the same – to terminate
services as to the sibling but return the minor to mother. The report stated that because
mother had been consistent with visitation, made significant progress in resolving the
problems that led to removal, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the
case plan objectives, the Agency recommended family maintenance services for mother
regarding the minor, although the social worker noted the recommendation would
separate the minor and the sibling, who were strongly bonded.
       When the parties appeared at the March 29, 2023 hearing, the Agency reported it
had changed its position and was requesting services be terminated as to both the minor
and the sibling because counsel represented that the minor still did not want to participate
in overnight visits and did not want to return to mother. Mother’s counsel objected,
stating that counsel had only been notified the day before the hearing about the change of
recommendation, but the juvenile court proceeded with the hearing. Evidence presented
consisted of the social workers’ earlier reports (which had recommended the return of the
minor to mother), mother’s exhibits consisting of social worker logs, and a stipulation

                                              3
regarding when individual counseling for the minor and the sibling had commenced and
how many sessions had taken place.
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found reasonable services had
been provided, and it adopted for both the minor and the sibling the recommendations
that had been made for the sibling. However, the written orders adopted and incorporated
by the juvenile court directed the return of the minor to mother with family maintenance
services. At least some of the recommended and adopted orders were applicable only to
the sibling but not the minor, such as the finding that the minor was age 12 or older.
Although the recommended findings adopted by the juvenile court included a finding that
return of the minor would create a substantial risk of detriment, they did not include a
factual basis for the finding of risk of detriment and none was made orally in court.
       Section 366.22, subd. (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that the court “shall order
the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the
court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent
or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or
physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of
establishing that detriment.” Section 366.22, subd. (a)(2) further provides: “Whether or
not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the
factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the
court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental.”
       Here, the juvenile court’s findings and orders are incomplete and/or inconsistent,
and it did not articulate a factual basis for a finding of detriment. Under the
circumstances, 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.

                                               4
                                             II
       Mother further contends that the inquiry made into the minor’s potential Indian
heritage was insufficient and failed to comply with ICWA.
       The March 2021 detention report, filed with the section 300 petition, relayed that
both parents had denied Indian ancestry. In April 2021, however, mother reported she
had family members who were Chickasaw Nation members and that she was attempting
to enroll herself with the tribe. Father never filled out his ICWA-020 form. The Agency
sent an ICWA notice to the Chickasaw Nation, which included the maternal
grandmother’s membership number and information, but the notice did not include
information about the deceased maternal grandfather. The notice was sent with respect to
both the minor and her sibling. It appears the Agency also sent notice to the Cherokee
and Blackfeet tribes with respect to minor’s half-sibling who has a different father.
       On November 12, 2021, the Chickasaw Nation responded that the maternal
grandmother was an enrolled Chickasaw Nation member, and thus mother, the minor, the
sibling, and the half-sibling were all eligible for membership based on the documented
lineage (no specific blood quantum was required). The Chickasaw Nation asked the
Agency to advise mother to complete the application it had enclosed for herself and the
children. Until then, the children did not qualify as Indian children but the Chickasaw
Nation asserted a vested interest in their welfare and asked to be immediately notified of
any change in their Indian status. The Agency repeatedly summarized this information
for the juvenile court but there is no record of any further Agency effort regarding ICWA
or whether the Agency provided mother with the Chickasaw Nation application the tribe
had enclosed.
       Although the juvenile court found at the April 21, 2022 review hearing that the
children were not Indian children, it did not make a finding that ICWA did not apply.
Thereafter, in a September 22, 2022 report, the Agency recommended a finding that the
children may be Indian children. In its March 2, 2023 report, the Agency said ICWA

                                             5
does or may apply and recommended a finding that the children may be Indian children.
The juvenile court adopted those findings and orders at the contested review hearing from
which this writ was taken.
       Mother argues the Agency failed to ask the maternal grandmother about the
maternal grandfather’s lineage and did not ask paternal extended-family members about
possible Native American heritage. Mother’s challenge is premature because the juvenile
court has not yet made its final ICWA ruling.
       “[ICWA] protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and
security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian
children from their families, and by permitting tribal participation in dependency
proceedings.” (In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 662.) The juvenile court and the
Agency have an affirmative and continuing duty, beginning at initial contact, to inquire
whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (Rule
5.481(a).)
       As this court explained in J.J. v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 447, if the
juvenile court did not yet make a final ICWA ruling at or before the challenged
dispositional hearing as to whether ICWA applies to the proceeding, a parent’s challenge
is premature. (Id. at p. 461.) Here, the most recent findings and orders indicate that
ICWA may apply. Because “any perceived deficiencies with ICWA inquiry and noticing
may still be resolved during the normal course of the ongoing dependency proceedings,”
we decline mother’s invitation to assess their current adequacy. (Ibid.; see also In re
M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 904.)
       The record indicates the Chickasaw Nation expressed interest in the welfare of the
minor and encouraged submission of an application. The juvenile court and the Agency
must continue efforts to ensure timely compliance with ICWA.

                                             6
                                      DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is granted as to mother’s challenge to the
juvenile court’s findings and orders entered at the March 29, 2023 review hearing.
The petition is denied as to the remaining contentions.
       Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing respondent court to (1) vacate
the findings and orders entered at the March 29, 2023 review hearing, and (2) conduct a
new review hearing. Having served its purpose, the stay previously issued by this court
is vacated. This decision is final forthwith as to this court. (Rule 8.490(b)(2).)

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
DUARTE, J.

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                              7