Court Opinion

ID: 9954611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 17:04:00.290382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:58.889427
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/26/24 In re I.V. CA1/2
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION TWO

 In re I.V., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN
 SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
                                                                         A168833
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                                      (Sonoma County Sup. Ct.
                                                                         No. DEP6651)
 S.B.,
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         In 2022, the Sonoma County Human Services Department
(Department) filed, and later amended, a petition alleging I.V. (child), then
four months old, came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The juvenile
court declared the child a dependent; later, it determined the Department
had complied with its obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion.  (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the limited
issue before us and we omit mention of family members who are not parties
to this appeal. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                                               1
(ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and that ICWA did not apply. Eventually,
the court terminated S.B. (mother’s) parental rights.
      ICWA establishes minimum standards that state courts must follow
before removing an Indian child from their family. (In re T.G. (2020) 58
Cal.App.5th 275, 287.) Under ICWA and related state statutes (§ 224 et
seq.), the Department was required to inquire whether the child had any
Indian heritage. (See In re T.G. at p. 292.) On appeal, mother argues the
Department and the juvenile court failed to comply with their ICWA
obligations.
      The Department agrees a limited remand is appropriate, and we accept
its concession.2 The Department concedes it had not yet interviewed
extended family members at the time it sent an ICWA inquiry letter to
various tribes. (See § 224.2, subd. (b).) It also acknowledges that its inquiry
letter and family tree did not include all known information available at the
time; nor did it send an updated letter or family tree after it received new
information. (See § 224.2, subds. (e)(2)(C), (j).) Given these deficiencies, we
conditionally reverse the order terminating mother’s parental rights for a
limited remand to ensure compliance with ICWA’s inquiry and notice
obligations. (In re T.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 299; In re Justin S.
(2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1437.)
                                DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights is
conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to permit the Department

      2 We informed the parties we were prepared to accept the Department’s

concession, conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights,
remand to permit compliance with ICWA, and issue the remittitur forthwith.
We invited the parties to notify the court if they objected to the proposed
disposition; no objection was received.

                                        2
and the court to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and
California law. If the court finds the child is an Indian child, it must conduct
a new section 366.26 hearing and all further proceedings in compliance with
ICWA and related California law. If the court concludes ICWA does not
apply, the order terminating mother’s parental rights must be immediately
reinstated. The remittitur is issued forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.272(c)(1)).)

                                       3
                                         _________________________
                                         Mayfield, J.*

We concur:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Miller, J.

In re I.V. (A168833)

     * Judge of the Mendocino Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                     4