In re Lucas J. CA1/5

── In re Lucas J. CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 In re Lucas J. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE In re LUCAS J. and MARIO B., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A174350, A174358 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (City & County of San Francisco ZACHARY B., Super. Ct. Nos. Defendant and Appellant. JD24-3071, JD24-3072) MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant, Zachary B. (father), is the biological father of Mario B., born in April 2024, and the presumed father of Lucas J., born in May 2023 (collectively, minors).2 Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order of legal guardianship as the permanent plan for minors under Welfare and 1 Father raises no substantial issues of law or fact. We thus resolve his consolidated appeals by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Standards of Judicial Administration section 8.1. 2 Minors’ mother and Lucas’s biological father are not parties to this appeal. As such, facts related to them will be limited to those relevant to father’s contentions on appeal. 1 Institutions Code section 366.26.3 Father raises two issues, one of which is conceded by plaintiff, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (agency). Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by limiting his supervised visitation with minors to once a month for three hours. As to Mario only, father also argues, and the agency concedes, that the requisite inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) was not undertaken with respect to the paternal grandfather. We uphold the visitation order as a proper exercise of the juvenile court’s discretion. As to the ICWA issue, conceded as error by the agency, we conditionally reverse and remand the case to the juvenile court to ensure ICWA compliance as to Mario. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Both father and mother have a long history of substance abuse and domestic violence. In April 2024, minors were detained and placed in foster care shortly after Mario’s birth, when he tested positive for fentanyl and amphetamines and mother failed to take him for follow-up appointments related to his condition. Lucas also tested positive at birth for the same substances. Based on these concerns, the agency filed dependency petitions on April 23, 2024. On August 21, 2024, the court sustained the allegations in an amended petition, finding that Lucas and Mario were minors described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). On September 4, 2025, the matter proceeded to a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26. After hearing testimony from the agency’s protective services worker and father, the court ordered a permanent plan for 3 All statutory citations herein are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 minors of legal guardianship with their maternal grandparents. The court also ordered supervised visitation for father once a month for three hours. Afterward, the court dismissed the dependency.