In re E.C. CA3

Filed 12/20/24 In re E.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C101036 Law.

TEHAMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL (Super. Ct. No. 23JU000048) SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant, mother of the minor E.C. (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother claims the Tehama County Department of Social Services (Department) failed to fulfill its duties of inquiry and notice as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Specifically, mother argues the Department prejudicially erred in failing to comply with the ICWA’s affirmative and continuing duty of inquiry by failing to interview the minor’s paternal and maternal relatives regarding the minor’s possible Indian heritage. Mother also argues the juvenile court erred in finding that the ICWA did not apply. The Department concedes that the record on appeal does not affirmatively resolve whether it made the requisite ICWA inquiries of extended family members, or whether the notices sent to the tribes were ICWA-compliant, and does not oppose limited remand for further ICWA proceedings. We agree that remand is the appropriate course. Accordingly, we will conditionally reverse the orders of the juvenile court and remand for further compliance with the ICWA. I. BACKGROUND Because the issues on appeal are limited to compliance with the ICWA, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedural history. The Department filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j), on May 22, 2023. At that time, the social worker asked mother whether she had any known Indian ancestry. Mother gave the social worker no reason to believe the minor was or might be an Indian child. J.C., father of the minor (father), could not be located but mother stated he did not have Indian ancestry either. Mother and father both appeared at the jurisdiction hearing on May 23, 2023. The court questioned the parents regarding Indian ancestry. Again, mother denied any Indian heritage. Father stated there was a possibility of ancestry through a tribe in Oklahoma but could not provide any further details. The court ordered the Department to follow up. Thereafter, father filed a parental notification of Indian status form (ICWA-020) stating a member of his family, E.W.C., is or was a member of a federally recognized tribe, and