In re C.H. CA2/4

Filed 8/27/24 In re C.H. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re C.H., B335048

a Person Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP03472)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.H. Sr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip Soto, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION C.H., Sr. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights with respect to his son, C.H., Jr. (child).1 Father argues that the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) failed to properly inquire into child’s Indian ancestry, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related state law. We conclude that the Department’s inquiry was incomplete and conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Child was taken into protective custody on July 23, 2021, after the paternal uncle with whom he was living attempted suicide. The Department filed a dependency petition four days later. The petition alleged that father had a history of substance abuse, was a current user of methamphetamine, and had made an inappropriate plan for child’s care. In advance of the detention hearing, father’s counsel filed an ICWA-020 form, indicating that father had no Indian2 heritage. No such form was filed by child’s mother, C.M. (mother), then or later. At the detention hearing, the court found no “reason to know” child had Indian heritage, but ordered both parents to keep “the Department, their Attorney and the Court” apprised of any new information.