Filed 6/25/24 In re A.H. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.H., et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 H051738

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. Nos. 23JD000106, 

23JD000107, 23JD000108)

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant R.H. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and 

disposition orders declaring his children—A.H. (born 2008), R.H. (born 2012), and 

Ad.H. (born 2016)—dependents of the court and removing them from his custody. The 

children’s mother is deceased. Father contends respondent Monterey County Department 

of Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the 

Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). The Department concedes 

the issue, and Father raises no others. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case for the 

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 

Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 

853-855.)
2

limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of 

ICWA.

In November 2023, the Department initiated dependency proceedings following 

allegations of physical abuse by Father against the eldest child, A.H. It was alleged that

all three children were at substantial risk of harm due to Father’s general neglect, and 

physical and emotional abuse, exacerbated by his excessive alcohol use.

At the detention hearing, Father denied any Indian ancestry and signed a parental 

notification of Indian status form confirming the same. (See Judicial Council Forms, 

form ICWA-020.) Father, however, believed that the children’s deceased mother may 

have been a member of or eligible for membership with the Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. 

The Department interviewed the maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother, who 

both denied any Indian ancestry. Based on these interviews, the Department concluded

that ICWA did not apply to the children. At the combined jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing, the juvenile court found that, although the children’s mother was deceased, the 

Department had made a reasonable inquiry into her heritage and no person had suggested 

that the mother had any Indian heritage. After the contested hearing, the juvenile court

entered its orders on January 16, 2024, which included its findings that ICWA did not 

apply, declaring the children dependents of the court, and removing them from Father’s 

care. 

We agree with the parties that there was an insufficient investigation regarding the 

children’s potential Indian ancestry through their mother. Once Father informed the 

Department that the children’s mother may have Indian ancestry, the Department had a 

duty to make a further inquiry. (In re I.F. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 152, 165-166; Welf. & 

Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (e).) Although the children’s mother is deceased, the 

Department did not contact the Cherokee tribe Father identified, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), or the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). (Welf. & Inst. 

Code, § 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(B) & (C).) While the Department interviewed the maternal 
3

grandfather, it failed to interview other maternal family members regarding the children’s 

possible Indian ancestry. (Id., subd. (e)(2)(A).) A remand is necessary to direct the 

Department to conduct further inquiry. This includes interviewing Father and/or any 

other maternal relatives about the mother’s ancestry, contacting the BIA and CDSS for 

assistance, and contacting any relevant tribe(s) to determine the children’s membership, 

citizenship status, or eligibility. (Id., subd. (e).) 

While the Department concedes that it failed to comply with ICWA, it requests 

that we conditionally affirm the orders subject to the remand. Father requests that we 

conditionally reverse. Presently, courts have applied varying standards to this type of 

error. Some courts hold that a deficient ICWA inquiry mandates reversal, some adopt a 

harmless error approach, and others strike a balance somewhere in the middle.2 (See In 

re K.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 566, 606-618 [detailing five different standards applied in 

ICWA appeals to assess whether reversal is required].) In this case, even if we adopt a 

harmless error analysis, the record is insufficient for this court to conclude that an 

adequate inquiry would not alter the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply. 

The Department has not argued otherwise and instead concedes that “the deceased 

mother could have established a tribal association beyond that of her bloodline.” As 

such, we reverse and remand this matter for the limited purpose of assuring compliance 

with ICWA.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction and disposition orders entered on January 16, 2024, are 

conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of ensuring 

compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA. If upon sufficient 

compliance, the court again finds that ICWA does not apply, it may reinstate its prior 

order entered on January 16, 2024, without the need for further proceedings. If, however, 

2 The issue is presently pending before the California Supreme Court in In re Dezi 

C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, review granted September 21, 2022, S275578.
4

the juvenile court determines that further action is required to satisfy ICWA 

requirements, it shall conduct proceedings accordingly.
_______________________________

Greenwood, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

 Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

______________________________________

 Wilson, J.

In re A.H. et al.; Monterey County DSS v. R.H.

H051738