In re Da.M. CA6

Filed 9/10/24 In re Da.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Da.M., et al., Persons Coming Under H051836 the Juvenile Court Law. (Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 22JD000101, 22JD000102, 22JD000103)

MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 At the 12-month review hearing in dependency proceedings, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for appellant, D.M. (Father), with his minor children, Da.M. (born 2017), N.M. (born 2020), and A.M. (born 2021). Father appeals the court’s findings and orders solely on the basis that respondent, Monterey County Department of Social Services (Department), failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). The Department concedes the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 1

Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)

issue. Consistent with the guidance of our Supreme Court, we conditionally reverse and remand the case for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA. (In re Dezi C. (Aug. 19, 2024, No. S275578) ___Cal.5th___ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 4634, at [40]] [“when an initial [ICWA] inquiry is inadequate, conditional reversal is warranted in order to develop the record and cure the inadequacy”] (In re Dezi C.).) In October 2022, the Department initiated dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),2 based on allegations that the children were at substantial risk of physical harm due to the parents’ substance abuse and domestic violence. The juvenile court placed the children temporarily in foster care while the Department investigated potential relative placements. At the detention hearing, Mother, K.W. (Mother), signed and filed a parental notification of Indian status form denying Indian heritage.3 (See Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020.) Father signed and filed the same form, indicating potential membership with the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation tribe (Ohlone tribe) in California, which was not a federally recognized tribe. The Department interviewed Mother and Mother’s brother, and both stated that they had no Indian heritage. Father stated that his close relatives, including his sister, were members of the Ohlone tribe. The Department made inquiries to the tribe, but the tribe’s representative stated it needed more information regarding Father’s family members to determine eligibility. Although the Department had contact with (or had contacts for) Father’s close relatives, including paternal grandfather and aunts, the Department did not ask them about their Indian heritage.