In re V.A. CA4/3

FACTS

We have encountered this family before, recently holding the parents established the parental-benefit exception as to V.A.’s older twin sisters. (In re J.A. (May 27, 2025, G064724) [nonpub. opn.].)3 It was undisputed the sisters “would benefit by continuing their contact with their parents.” (Id. at p. 15.) Moreover, “the evidence pointed consistently toward harm” that outweighed “the modest benefits to be gained through adoption over guardianship in [that] case.” (Id. at p. 21.) As for V.A., he lived with the parents for his first 11 months. He first came to the juvenile court’s attention the month he was born, based on allegations of substance abuse and domestic violence. The court declined to issue a protective custody warrant. Later, the court found a prima facie

1 The parents share the same initials as V.A. so we refer to them as Mother and Father.

2 “[W]e use the term ‘Indian’ throughout to reflect the statutory language” (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1125, fn. 1 (Dezi C.)) used by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) and the corresponding California Indian Child Welfare Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.; Cal-ICWA),…