Filed 4/28/22 In re T.G. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re T.G., A Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D080038

(Super. Ct. No. J520793B)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with 

directions.

M.G. (Father) appeals from an order issued at the contested disposition 

hearing where the juvenile court denied his request for reunification services 

and found without prejudice that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 

U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Father and the San Diego 

County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency, together the parties) 
2

have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under the ICWA

was inadequate under the relevant statutory and decisional authority. The 

parties filed a joint stipulation seeking the issuance of an immediate 

remittitur. We accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse, and remand for 

compliance with the ICWA.

In July 2021, Father initially told a social worker that he had no Native 

American heritage but later disclosed possible Cherokee heritage in his 

maternal and paternal lineages. Mother, A.M., claimed possible Cherokee 

ancestry through the maternal great-great-grandmother. Father and Mother 

ultimately denied Indian ancestry at a hearing held in September 2021.

The parties agree that the Agency did not comply with its initial duty of 

inquiry in this case by failing to inquire of available extended family

members regarding any potential Indian ancestry. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).)1 Additionally, the Agency did not include all known 

relatives on its ICWA-030 form, and the Agency sent the ICWA-030 form to 

some Cherokee tribes before it satisfied its initial inquiry duty.

We also note additional issues not mentioned by the parties. First, the 

juvenile court failed to order the parents to complete the ICWA-020 form. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).) Although the parents ultimately 

denied Indian ancestry, this denial does not “relieve[] the [Agency] of its 

broad duty to seek that information from ‘all relevant’ individuals.” (In re 

Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554.) A contrary rule would “ignore[] the 

reality that parents may not know their possible relationship with or 

connection to an Indian tribe.” (Ibid.; In re S.R. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 303, 

314 [“the children’s parents apparently had no idea of their family’s 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
3

connection to the . . . tribe . . . , even though the children’s great-grandmother 

was a member”].) Finally, before the juvenile court can make a finding that 

the ICWA does not apply, it must make a finding that “due diligence as 

required in this section have been conducted.” (§ 224.2, subd. (i)(2).)

Before reversing or vacating a judgment based upon a stipulation of the 

parties, an appellate court must find “both of the following: [¶] (A) There is 

no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be 

adversely affected by the reversal. [¶] (B) The reasons of the parties for 

requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from 

the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated 

reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 128, subd. (a)(8).)

The present case involves reversible error because the parties agree, 

and we concur, that the Agency failed to comply with the ICWA and related 

California provisions. Because this case would be subject to reversal to 

permit compliance with ICWA and corresponding California statutes and 

rules absent the parties’ stipulation, a stipulated remand advances the 

interests identified by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). 

(See In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382.)

DISPOSITION

The orders issued at the January 14, 2022, disposition hearing are

conditionally reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with 

directions that within 30 days of the remittitur, the Agency must file (1) a 

completed Form ICWA-020 for each parent and (2) a report demonstrating its 

compliance with the inquiry provisions of the ICWA and section 224.2, 

subdivision (b), and, if required, conduct further inquiry under section 224.2, 

subdivision (e). Within 45 days of the remittitur, the juvenile court must 
4

conduct a hearing to determine if the Agency’s investigation satisfied its 

affirmative duty to investigate. The juvenile court has the discretion to 

adjust these time periods on a showing of good cause.

If neither the Agency nor the juvenile court has reason to believe or to 

know that T.G. is an Indian child, the orders issued at the January 14, 2022, 

disposition hearing shall be reinstated. Alternatively, if after completing the 

inquiry the Agency or the juvenile court has reason to believe that T.G. is an 

Indian child, the court shall proceed accordingly. The remittitur shall issue 

immediately.

DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.