Filed 10/27/23 In re R.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 R.S., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 D082347 

 (Super. Ct. San Diego County

No. EJ4854; Super Ct. Riverside 

County No. DPSW2300312)

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded 

with directions.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant, K.S.

Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant, C.S.
2

Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy 

County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

C.S. (Father) and K.S. (Mother) appeal from jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders concerning their child, R.S. (Child). The sole issue on 

appeal is whether the juvenile court erred by finding that the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply before the

San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) completed 

its initial inquiry under ICWA and Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 

224.2. We affirm the jurisdictional and dispositional orders but remand the 

case for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA inquiry requirements.

Section 224.2 imposes an “affirmative and continuing duty” upon the 

Agency and the juvenile court to inquire whether a child subject to juvenile 

dependency may be a child of Native American ancestry. (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) 

Subdivision (b) of section 224.2 creates an expanded duty of initial inquiry 

that requires the Agency to ask “extended family member[s]” and “others who 

have an interest in the child” whether the child may have Native American 

ancestry. ICWA defines “ ‘extended family member’ ” to include the “child’s 

grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, 

niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or stepparent.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); 

Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (c) [“ ‘extended family member’ . . . defined 

as provided in [§] 1903” of ICWA].)

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “raise[s] no 

substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.
3

Mother and Father identify five individuals they claim the Agency was 

reasonably able to contact and should have asked about possible Native 

American heritage: a paternal aunt; two paternal uncles; an adult halfsibling; and a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) who was the 

Child’s caregiver.

As the Agency notes, the juvenile court questioned Child’s adult halfsibling about potential Native American relatives or tribal connections at the 

first detention hearing, satisfying the duty of initial inquiry. However, the 

Agency agrees it did not inquire of Child’s paternal aunt, paternal uncles, 

and the NREFM. It concedes that the NREFM has an “interest in the child” 

for purposes of section 224.2, subdivision (b), and identifies all of these 

individuals as “additional inquiry leads.” We agree with the Agency’s 

concession that it should make reasonable efforts to ask these individuals 

whether the Child may be a Native American child. Accordingly, we reverse 

the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and remand for 

compliance with ICWA. Because Mother and Father do not contest the 

jurisdiction and disposition orders on any other grounds, we otherwise affirm 

these orders. (See, e.g., In re Damian C. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 192, 199–

200.)
4

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s ICWA finding is reversed, and the jurisdictional 

and dispositional orders are otherwise affirmed. While this appeal was 

pending, the underlying action was transferred to the Superior Court of 

Riverside County. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Riverside 

County juvenile court (Super. Ct. Riverside County case No. DPSW2300312)

with directions to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and 

section 224.2.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.