CA Unpub Decisions

Mother had a prior voluntary services case in 2016, due to concerns about her mental health and ability to care for her then-newborn son, J.H. During that investigation, it was found Mother had developmental and/or cognitive delays. She received parenting services and attended counseling, and the case was successfully closed after about six months.
In 2018 and 2019, the Agency received reports that J.H. was at times left in a soiled diaper, played in the cat litter box, went to bed without dinner and may skip other meals, and was heard screaming because he was hungry. By this time, J.H. was diagnosed with autism. Several child welfare cases for general neglect were opened but closed as inconclusive.
In September 2020, a voluntary case was opened after the Agency received reports that Mother and Father, who is the father of J.W. but not J.H., constantly hit, punch, and “toss [J.H.] around.”

Mother had a prior voluntary services case in 2016, due to concerns about her mental health and ability to care for her then-newborn son, J.H. During that investigation, it was found Mother had developmental and/or cognitive delays. She received parenting services and attended counseling, and the case was successfully closed after about six months.
In 2018 and 2019, the Agency received reports that J.H. was at times left in a soiled diaper, played in the cat litter box, went to bed without dinner and may skip other meals, and was heard screaming because he was hungry. By this time, J.H. was diagnosed with autism. Several child welfare cases for general neglect were opened but closed as inconclusive.
In September 2020, a voluntary case was opened after the Agency received reports that Mother and Father, who is the father of J.W. but not J.H., constantly hit, punch, and “toss [J.H.] around.”

Mother had a prior voluntary services case in 2016, due to concerns about her mental health and ability to care for her then-newborn son, J.H. During that investigation, it was found Mother had developmental and/or cognitive delays. She received parenting services and attended counseling, and the case was successfully closed after about six months.
In 2018 and 2019, the Agency received reports that J.H. was at times left in a soiled diaper, played in the cat litter box, went to bed without dinner and may skip other meals, and was heard screaming because he was hungry. By this time, J.H. was diagnosed with autism. Several child welfare cases for general neglect were opened but closed as inconclusive.
In September 2020, a voluntary case was opened after the Agency received reports that Mother and Father, who is the father of J.W. but not J.H., constantly hit, punch, and “toss [J.H.] around.”

Defendant Jeffrey Eugene Fridley entered a plea agreement to resolve two felony cases filed against him. Pursuant to that agreement, defendant pled guilty in one case to receiving stolen property and admitted to having been convicted of a strike offense. In the other case, defendant pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.
At sentencing, the trial court imposed the upper term of three years, doubled to six years pursuant to the three strikes law, for defendant’s receiving stolen property conviction. For the assault conviction, the trial court imposed a consecutive one-year term.

In April 2020, the public guardian filed a petition for appointment of conservatorship of A.S. and her estate. A report by a county investigator, filed in connection with the April 2020 petition, detailed A.S.’s struggles with mental health. Quoting a psychiatrist who had recently examined A.S., the report observed that A.S. suffered from “psychotic symptoms of delusions and paranoid ideation,” impairing her judgment and impulse control.
The report also explained that, in an April 2020 interview, A.S. (a) “repeatedly told th[e] investigator she did not want to be conserved,” (b) expressed a desire to “work with her social worker . . . and find low income housing in Sacramento,” and (c) refused to answer multiple questions posed by the investigator, saying, “ ‘I don’t trust you,’ ” and versions of “ ‘I won’t answer, that is none of your business.’ ”

The facts of defendant’s crimes are irrelevant to this appeal. Suffice it to say, defendant pled guilty to a qualifying sexual offense in 2004 in exchange for the dismissal of a similar sexual offense against a separate victim. In 2009, a petition was filed alleging defendant met the criteria of a sexually violent predator.
On June 7, 2021, defendant remotely appeared for a trial status conference. Before speaking with the judge, defendant and his attorney were sent to a virtual breakout room to speak privately. When defendant and his attorney returned to speak with the trial court, defendant’s counsel stated he was ready for trial, but “[t]he issue that has not been able to get resolved is whether or not [defendant] is going to request a jury trial in this matter.

We provide only the information relevant to determination of the issues on appeal.
Detention Though Termination of Parental Rights
In May 2019, the minor tested positive for methamphetamine and heroin at birth. Both parents admitted to using drugs. The minor was detained from both parents while she remained in the hospital receiving care. Butte County Children’s Services (the Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on May 21, 2019, alleging that the minor came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) for the parents’ failure to protect her. The Agency reported there were relatives to consider for placement; father identified his sister, T.D., as interested in placement.
The minor was detained on May 22, 2019. The jurisdiction hearing was held on June 5, 2019; the petition was sustained. The case was transferred from Butte County to Yuba County.

S.H. has had numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and had previously been under conservatorship. The California Highway Patrol concluded she was a danger to herself or others and placed her on a 72-hour hold under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000, 5150.) She was recertified for an additional 14-day hold. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5250.) She has refused to take her medications. On July 14, 2021, the County of Shasta sought a declaration from the court regarding S.H.’s capacity to give informed consent to medication. After considering the treating physician’s declaration, the trial court found she did not have the capacity to give informed consent to medication and could be required to accept such medication.

In October 2019, probation officers conducted a probation search of defendant’s home. Inside the home, officers found feces on a bed, rotten food, and butane tanks. They also found a “butane honey oil extraction apparatus,” which contained, among other things, butane, coffee filters, tubing, and “marijuana shake.” At the time of the search defendant’s three-year old child was also home.
Defendant was arrested and the People charged him with numerous criminal offenses including manufacturing concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11594) and felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). In exchange for the People agreeing they would move to dismiss the remaining five charges, defendant pleaded no contest to manufacturing concentrated cannabis and felony child endangerment. The parties also agreed defendant would serve an aggregate term of five years in state prison.

Defendant and Lor were in a long-term relationship. Between the two were several children, including daughters Mindy, Pangfoua, and Isabella; and sons Xou and Leng. When Mindy was in the fifth or sixth grade, defendant began touching her. He would come to her bedroom at night and touch her breasts under her clothes and touch her vagina over and under her clothes. Mindy shared a bed with Pangfoua, and Xou was in the room in his own bed. Mindy did not recall the number of times defendant touched her breasts, but it was more than once. Defendant touched Mindy’s vagina “a lot.” Mindy did not tell her mother because she was afraid of defendant and ashamed. Mindy did not know if her mother would believe her. Mindy never told her siblings, including Pangfoua, who never woke up during the abuse.
One time, Mindy woke up while defendant was touching her. She turned on the light and asked what defendant was doing. Defendant said he was looking for something.

In November 2017, defendant worked with others to cash payroll checks that were stolen from a business in Oroville. In April 2018, defendant was arrested while coming out of a building with an activated security alarm carrying rubber gloves and a screwdriver.
Defendant was charged in Butte County in two cases, the first case with identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and forgery related to identity theft. (§ 470, subd. (a).) It was further alleged defendant had six prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) For the second case, defendant was charged with second degree commercial burglary (§ 459) with the same six prior prison term allegations. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) In July 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to identity theft in the first case and commercial burglary in the second case for a maximum potential prison term of three years eight months in exchange for dismissal of the other charges and allegations.

On July 11, 2014, the Department filed an amended section 300 petition that alleged, as later amended and sustained, that father M.M. physically abused then two-year-old Savanah and threatened to kill her, and mother failed to protect the child from father’s abuse. The petition further alleged mother and father had a history of engaging in violent altercations in Savanah’s presence—all of the identified conduct concerned father’s domestic abuse of mother—and mother failed to protect the child from the domestic abuse. Finally, the petition alleged that father had a history of mental and emotional problems that rendered him incapable of providing Savanah with regular care and supervision and mother knew of father’s condition but failed to protect the child.
The Department’s May 27, 2014, Detention Report stated, “The Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply per . . . mother . . . on 05/09/14.” Mother had “mild retardation with complications of a brain disorder.”

On May 10, 2018, around 8:15 a.m., C.R. came home to find appellant standing in her driveway. Appellant and C.R. had previously been married for about 14 years, and C.R. had an active restraining order against appellant. Appellant had recently come to C.R.’s home on multiple occasions in violation of the restraining order. C.R. told appellant to leave and not to enter the house. Appellant responded that she could “ ‘[c]all the cops,’ ” but he was going inside and the police would have to get him out. Appellant then broke a window with a stick and entered the house through the broken window. He went upstairs to the master bedroom and locked himself inside. Law enforcement arrived and took appellant into custody. The cost to replace the damaged window was about $400.
On May 24, 2018, appellant waived his rights to a preliminary hearing and trial, and entered a plea of no contest to one count of felony vandalism. (§ 594, subd. (a).)

Father appeals from an order terminating parental rights to his three children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends the juvenile court erred when it determined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) satisfied its inquiry obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law as to the children’s possible Indian heritage. No interested party filed a respondent’s brief; instead, father, DCFS, and the children filed a joint application and stipulation for conditional reversal and remand to the juvenile court to permit proper compliance with ICWA and related California law. We accept the parties’ stipulation.
This case involves reversible error because the parties agree, and we concur, there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744