San Bernardino County Children and Family Services v. L.P.

San Bernardino, California family law lawyer represented the Defendant on a parental rights termination claim.



Father had two sons with his girlfriend, C.L. (Mother): Cash P. (born in 2020) and Luke P. (born in 2016) (collectively, the children). In May 2022, the family lived with the paternal grandmother, Michelle P. The family came to the attention of CFS in May 2022, when CFS received two referrals on the same day, one a 10-day referral alleging general neglect by both parents and the other an emergency referral alleging severe neglect by Mother. The emergency referral concerned a minor automobile collision in which Mother was driving with Cash in the car. Mother was nonresponsive and believed to be under the influence.



Social workers went to the police station and interviewed Mother. Mother reported that Luke was with Father, but Mother did not provide any contact information for Father or know his location. The social workers informed Mother that they would be taking custody of Cash, given that Father's location was unknown and that Mother was being arrested. Mother wanted Cash placed with her brother, Kenneth S., and his wife, Victoria S., who were at the police station. Kenneth and Victoria S. wanted to be assessed for placement, but Kenneth disclosed that he had a criminal record, which the social workers explained disqualified him for emergency placement.



CFS took Cash into temporary custody on the basis of exigent circumstances and soon thereafter obtained a warrant to take Luke into protective custody. CFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), alleging that Mother had a substance abuse issue and that both parents engaged in domestic violence in the children's presence. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The court detained the children from the parents, and they were placed in the home of a nonrelated extended family member, Maria C., who had "a longstanding relationship with the children."



Both parents first appeared at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing held in late May 2022. Mother spoke with a social worker one week before the hearing and denied having Indian ancestry.[1] At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court asked both parents whether they had Indian ancestry, and both denied that they did.



* * *

Legal issue Did the juvenile court and child welfare services comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act before terminating parental rights?



Key Phrases Indian Child Welfare Act. Parental rights termination. Reunification services. Choctaw tribe ancestry. Juvenile court discretion.

Affirmed