1

Filed 1/24/23 In re J.S. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E079557

(Super.Ct.No. SWJ1200383)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge. 

Reversed with directions.

Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.
2

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Melinda H. Frey, Deputy County Counsel for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of C.Y. (Mother) and J.L.S. 

(Father) to their son, J.S. (Minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) Father 

contends a proper inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 

§ 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) was not conducted. Riverside County Department of Public 

Social Services (the Department) concedes the error. We conditionally reverse the 

order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

“[Mother] has a ten year history with the Child Welfare system in Riverside 

County, where she has been provided with Reunification and Family Maintenance 

services due to a long chronic history of substance abuse and unresolved mental health 

problems. [Mother] has had seven children, one who died in her care and custody, and 

two of her children were sexually abused in her care.”

Minor was born in April 2021. Approximately 10 days after his birth, the 

Department placed Minor in foster care. In the juvenile court, Minor’s dependency case 

was given the same case number as his maternal half siblings, whose dependency case 

was already underway. (Super. Ct. Riverside County, case No. SWJ1200383.)
3

On May 17, 2021, Mother denied having Indian ancestry. On March 23, 2021,

and May 20, 2021, Father denied having Indian ancestry. Despite the denials of Indian 

heritage, in May 2021, the Department contacted the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to 

inquire if Minor’s relatives were enrolled or eligible for enrollment with the Tribe. The 

Department provided Father’s name and the names of various maternal relatives. The 

Department indicated that one of the maternal relatives, Minor’s great-great-great-greatgrandfather, was an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation 

responded that Mother, Father, and Minor were not registered citizens of the Cherokee 

Nation.

Also in May 2021, the Department contacted more than 30 Indian tribes and 

bands to inquire about Minor’s possible Indian ancestry. The responding tribes and 

bands concluded that Minor was not a member nor eligible for membership.

DISCUSSION

Father contends that there is a discrepancy between Mother and Father denying 

Indian ancestry and the Department contacting tribes to inquire about Minor’s possible 

tribal affiliation. Father infers that information about Indian ancestry was provided in 

Minor’s maternal half-siblings’ dependency proceedings, but that information failed to 

be recorded in Minor’s proceedings.1 Further, Father asserts there is no indication of an 

1

 After Father filed his appellant’s opening brief, the Department moved to 

augment the record, and this court granted the motion. The augmented record reflects 

that in July 2019 Mother completed a form in the proceedings for Minor’s half sibling 

indicating that Mother may have Indian ancestry, specifically Chippewa, Cherokee, 

and/or Navajo.
4

inquiry into Minor’s paternal relatives’ ancestry. Father faults the Department and the 

juvenile court for failing to conduct an adequate ICWA inquiry on behalf of Minor. 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b).) The Department concedes an adequate ICWA 

inquiry was not conducted. We will conditionally reverse the judgment so an adequate 

ICWA inquiry can be made. 

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) is 

conditionally reversed. The juvenile court shall order, pursuant to ICWA and California 

Rules of Court rules 5.481 and 5.482, that within 30 days of the remittitur being issued 

that the Department perform a diligent inquiry into Minor’s possible Indian ancestry. If 

adequate additional investigation is performed but yields no further information that 

could assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a specific tribe or tribes in determining 

whether Minor is an Indian child, then the juvenile court shall reinstate its section 

366.26 order. If, as a result of that inquiry, information is obtained that may assist the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs or a tribe in determining whether Minor is an Indian child, then 

the juvenile court shall order the Department to provide the relevant tribe(s) and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs with proper notice of the proceedings.

In the event no tribe responds indicating Minor is an Indian child, or if no tribe 

seeks to intervene, then the juvenile court shall reinstate its section 366.26 order. If a 

tribe determines that Minor is an Indian child and seeks to intervene in the proceedings, 

then the juvenile court shall vacate its prior orders and conduct all proceedings in 
5

accordance with ICWA and related California laws. (In re Josiah T. (2021) 71 

Cal.App.5th 388, 409.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.