In re B.W. CA3

Filed 7/26/24 In re B.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

In re B.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C099915 Court Law.

TEHAMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL (Super. Ct. Nos. 21JU-000069, SERVICES, 21JU-000070)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mother T.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s November 7, 2023, order terminating mother’s parental rights and freeing minors B.W. and T.S. (collectively, the minors) for adoption.1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)2 Mother argues the initial inquiry

1 Neither the presumed father of B.W. nor the presumed father of T.S. are parties to this appeal. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) by the Tehama County Department of Social Services (the Department) was insufficient because, although T.S.’s presumed father B.S. claimed to have Native American ancestry, the Department failed to follow up with him or contact known relatives to inquire whether they knew of possible Native American ancestry. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) Mother further argues the Department filed insufficient ICWA notices. We agree further ICWA compliance is warranted. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2021, the Department filed petitions alleging that the minors came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. ICWA Inquiries and Findings in Prior Dependency Cases In a prior dependency case involving B.W., it was determined that B.W. was not a Native American child, and the Department asked the court to take judicial notice of the case. During that prior dependency case, mother, maternal grandmother, B.W.’s father, and B.W.’s paternal grandmother each told the social worker in February 2020 that there was no known Native American heritage on their respective sides of the family. In a previous dependency case involving the biological children of T.S.’s father who were alive in 2013 (i.e., not T.S.), it was found that those other children did not have Native American ancestry. The Department asked the court to take judicial notice of this prior case. ICWA Inquiries and Findings in Current Case In September 2021, T.S.’s paternal aunt, K.I., told the social worker there was no known Native American ancestry in her family. Later that month, mother and T.S.’s father each informed the court there was no known Native American ancestry. The juvenile court found the ICWA did not apply. In October 2021, T.S.’s father stated on a Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form that he thought T.S. had Cherokee and Choctaw heritage, from either