Filed 8/27/24 In re C.H. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re C.H.,

a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B335048

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP03472)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.H. Sr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County 

Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and 

Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

C.H., Sr. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating 

his parental rights with respect to his son, C.H., Jr. (child).

1 Father argues 

that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) failed to properly inquire into child’s Indian ancestry, as 

required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA)

and related state law. We conclude that the Department’s inquiry was 

incomplete and conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Child was taken into protective custody on July 23, 2021, after the 

paternal uncle with whom he was living attempted suicide. The Department 

filed a dependency petition four days later. The petition alleged that father 

had a history of substance abuse, was a current user of methamphetamine, 

and had made an inappropriate plan for child’s care. 

In advance of the detention hearing, father’s counsel filed an ICWA-020 

form, indicating that father had no Indian2 heritage. No such form was filed 

by child’s mother, C.M. (mother), then or later. At the detention hearing, the 

court found no “reason to know” child had Indian heritage, but ordered both 

parents to keep “the Department, their Attorney and the Court” apprised of 

any new information. 

1 Child shares his father’s name. We refer to him as “child” to avoid 

confusion. We intend no disrespect. Child’s mother, C.M., is not a party to 

this appeal.

2 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for 

consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native 

American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1.)
3

In August 2021, child was placed with his paternal aunt. In September 

2021, the trial court sustained the Department’s petition, ordered child 

removed from father’s custody, and directed that reunification services be 

offered to both parents. Mother’s reunification services were terminated in 

April 2022. Father’s reunification services were terminated in August 2023. 

Mother appeared, with counsel, at the hearing when father’s services 

were terminated. The court asked if mother had any Indian heritage, or if 

any family members might know of Indian heritage. Mother conferred with 

counsel, and counsel answered in the negative. On December 13, 2023, the 

court terminated parental rights for both parents. Father timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

ICWA exists “to protect Indian children and to promote the stability 

and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum federal 

standards that a state court . . . must follow before removing an Indian child 

from his or her family.” (In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 881.) 

ICWA defines “Indian child” to mean any unmarried person who is under 18 

and is either (a) already a member of an Indian tribe or (b) both eligible for 

membership in an Indian tribe and the biological child of a member of a tribe. 

(25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) California law adopts the ICWA definition. (Welf. & 

Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (a).)3 

Both the juvenile court and the Department have an ongoing duty to 

inquire whether a child qualifies under that definition. (In re N.F. (2023) 95 

Cal.App.5th 170, 176 (N.F.).) This duty applies in three phases: the initial 

3 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code, unless otherwise stated.
4

inquiry, any further inquiry, and formal notice to the relevant tribe or tribes. 

The initial inquiry is the phase at issue here.

Upon initial contact with the child, the Department must ask those 

involved if they have any information about the child’s heritage. (N.F., 

supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at p. 176.) If the Department takes the child into 

temporary custody (as it did here), the department must inquire of “‘the child, 

parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others 

who have an interest in the child, and the party reporting child abuse or 

neglect.’” (Id. at p. 177, quoting § 224.2, subd. (b).)

Father argues that the Department failed to interview any relatives of 

either parent. The Department concedes the error but argues that it was 

harmless. When this case was briefed, there was a split of authority 

regarding the standard of review. The California Supreme Court has 

recently resolved that split, and with it, this case. 

In re Dezi C. (Aug. 19, 2024, S275578) __Cal.5th __ (2024 WL 3853597

at p. *1) holds that where the Department’s inquiry is inadequate, 

conditional reversal is required. The matter must be returned to the trial 

court and the Department must conduct the proper inquiry. (Ibid.) That 

holding governs here.

DISPOSITION

The orders terminating parental rights are conditionally reversed. The 

matter is remanded to the juvenile court. The court is to order the 

Department to complete the required ICWA inquiry, supported by record 

documentation. If the court subsequently determines that ICWA does not 

apply, then the court shall reinstate the order terminating parental rights. If 
5

the court determines that ICWA applies, then it shall proceed in conformity 

with ICWA and related California law.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

CURREY, P. J.

COLLINS, J.