In re W.B.

California Supreme Court

In re W.B.

DecidedSeptember 26, 2012

DocketS181638M

StatusPublished

This text of In re W.B. (In re W.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re W.B., (Cal. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 9/26/12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA In re W.B., JR., a Person Coming ) Under the Juvenile Court Law. ) __________________________________ ) ) THE PEOPLE, ) ) S181638 Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E047368 v. ) ) Riverside County W.B., JR., ) (Super. Ct. No. RIJ114127) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ___________________________________ )

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING THE COURT: The majority opinion is modified as follows. On page 55, footnote 14 in this case, filed on August 6, 2012, and appearing at 55 Cal.4th 30, is modified to read in its entirety: “As W.B.’s counsel noted at oral argument, a child’s Indian status cannot be finally confirmed without input from the tribes. (See § 224.1, subd. (a); 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) But this fact does not expand ICWA’s duty of notice to all cases. Contact with the BIA and tribes is required only if information produced by the initial inquiry gives the court, social worker, or probation officer reason to know the minor is an Indian child. (§ 224.3, subd. (c).) Section 224.3 imposes a duty to inquire about possible Indian status; it does not obligate the court to confirm that status with the BIA and tribes in every juvenile court case.” This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 9/26/12

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA In re W.B., JR., a Person Coming ) Under the Juvenile Court Law. ) __________________________________ ) ) THE PEOPLE, ) ) S181638 Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E047368 v. ) ) Riverside County W.B., JR., ) (Super. Ct. No. RIJ114127) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ___________________________________ )

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING THE COURT: The majority opinion is modified as follows. On page 55, footnote 14 in this case, filed on August 6, 2012, and appearing at 55 Cal.4th 30, is modified to read in its entirety: “As W.B.’s counsel noted at oral argument, a child’s Indian status cannot be finally confirmed without input from the tribes. (See § 224.1, subd. (a); 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) But this fact does not expand ICWA’s duty of notice to all cases. Contact with the BIA and tribes is required only if information produced by the initial inquiry gives the court, social worker, or probation officer reason to know the minor is an Indian child. (§ 224.3, subd. (c).) Section 224.3 imposes a duty to inquire about possible Indian status; it does not obligate the court to confirm that status with the BIA and tribes in every juvenile court case.” This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re W.B., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wb-cal-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack