In re A.B. CA5

INTRODUCTION

J.B. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order removing her children A.B (born Apr. 2013), H.B. (born Feb. 2015) and S.B. (born Apr. 2017)1 from her physical custody for the third time. Mother argues there is not substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s removal order. Mother further argues reasonable means existed to protect the children without removal, and the juvenile court erred by failing to order further services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.32 as a best alternative for the children. Mother finally argues the juvenile court and the Kern County Department of Human Services (the department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA).3 We affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Juvenile Dependency Petition On July 8, 2022, San Bernardino County Child and Family Services (CFS) filed juvenile dependency petitions for A.B., H.B., and S.B., alleging they came within the provision of section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (c) and (g). Each identical petition alleged the children suffered, or there was a substantial risk the children would suffer,…