Court Opinion

ID: 9905607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 20:03:55.924707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.010804
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 In re A.C. CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 In re A.C., a Person Coming Under                                                             C099072
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT                                                      (Super. Ct. No. JD241110)
 OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 I.C.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         The father of the minor A.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating
parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395;
further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Father contends the initial
inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by the Sacramento County
Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) was insufficient because
the Department failed to contact known relatives to inquire whether they knew of

                                                             1
possible Native American ancestry even though the parents denied such ancestry.
(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department agrees that further ICWA
compliance is warranted because the inquiry was only of the parents and paternal
grandmother. We remand for further ICWA compliance.
       In January 2021, the Department filed a petition alleging that the minor came
within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. The
Department asked the mother and the paternal grandmother about possible Native
American ancestry, and they denied that either parent had any such ancestry. Both
parents provided “Parental Notification of Indian Status” (ICWA-020) forms, stating they
had no Native American ancestry. At the detention hearing, both parents denied any
Native American ancestry, and the juvenile court found that there was no reason to know
or believe the minor was an Indian child. At the contested selection and implementation
hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the court terminated parental rights.
       “The ICWA defines an ‘ “Indian child” ’ as a child who ‘is either (a) a member of
an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological
child of a member of an Indian tribe.’ (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) The juvenile court and the
social services department have an affirmative and continuing duty, beginning at initial
contact, to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an
Indian child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).)” (In re G.A. (2022)
81 Cal.App.5th 355, 360, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056.) “[F]rom the
[Department’s] initial contact with a minor and his [or her] family, [section 224.2]
imposes a duty of inquiry to ask all involved persons whether the child may be an Indian
child. (§ 224.2, subds. (a), (b).)” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1052.)
“Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking 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, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.”
(§ 224.2, subd. (b).)

                                              2
       Here, the Department had contact information for multiple relatives but inquiry
about Indian ancestry was made only of the parents and paternal grandmother. We
therefore remand to address compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of the
ICWA. (See § 224.2, subd. (b); see also In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554; In re
A.C. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1016-1018.)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The orders terminating parental rights are conditionally affirmed for both parents
subject to full compliance with the ICWA. If, on remand, the juvenile court determines
the minor is an Indian child, the court shall vacate its previous orders terminating parental
rights and conduct further proceedings consistent with the ICWA, including a new
section 366.26 hearing. (25 U.S.C. § 1914; § 224, subd. (e).)

                                                   /s/
                                                  MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                             3