Court Opinion

ID: 9893546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 17:05:02.367884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:27.599655
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
                                                                 D082347
 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
 AND HUMAN SERVICES
 AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. San Diego County
                                                                 No. EJ4854; Super Ct. Riverside
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                             County No. DPSW2300312)

           v.

 C.S. et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

         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.
      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.
                                        2
        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 half-
sibling; and a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) who was the
Child’s caregiver.
        As the Agency notes, the juvenile court questioned Child’s adult half-
sibling 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.)

                                        3
                               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.

                                      4