In re F.A. CA3

Filed 4/29/25 In re F.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Lassen) ----

In re F.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C102773 Law.

LASSEN COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL (Super. Ct. No. SERVICES AGENCY, 2024JV0073783)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.B., mother of the minor F.A., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother claims the Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency (Department) and Lassen County

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

1

Health and Social Services Agency (Agency) both failed to fulfill their affirmative and continuing duties of inquiry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because neither interviewed the minor’s maternal relatives regarding the minor’s possible Native American ancestry. Therefore, mother contends, the juvenile court’s findings that the ICWA did not apply are not supported by the record. The Agency concedes that the record on appeal does not affirmatively resolve whether it, or the Department before it, made the requisite ICWA inquiries of extended family members and agrees that limited remand for further ICWA proceedings is appropriate. 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. This case commenced in Shasta County when the Department filed a dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g) on behalf of the then newborn minor and her two older maternal halfsiblings, who were later dismissed from the proceedings and are not subject of this appeal. Neither mother nor the alleged father appeared at the January 2024 detention hearing, and their whereabouts were then unknown, as they had been evicted from their residence and were not returning calls. According to the detention report, mother had denied Native American ancestry. The alleged father had not provided any information confirming or denying Native American ancestry. The juvenile court ordered the minor detained. Mother made her first appearance at the February 2024 jurisdiction hearing. At that hearing, the juvenile court inquired of mother whether she had Native American ancestry, to which she replied, “No, I do not.” The juvenile court then directed mother to