In re K.R. CA3
Filed 5/29/25 In re K.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----
In re K.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C102174 Law.
SUTTER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. DPSQ22- SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 0000039)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant D.W., father of minor K.R., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 D.W. (father) contends the Sutter County Health and Human Services Department (Department) failed
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
to fulfill its affirmative and continuing duty of inquiry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because it failed to make proper inquiry of known relatives regarding the minor’s possible Native American ancestry. The Department concedes that the record on appeal is insufficient to ascertain whether it made the requisite ICWA inquiries of known or ascertainable 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. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL 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. In August 2022, the Department filed a section 300, subdivision (b), petition on behalf of the then-newborn minor based on the parents’ developmental and intellectual disabilities. The juvenile court sustained the petition and adjudged the minor a dependent child of the court. The minor was ordered to remain in the parents’ home with family maintenance services. The parents filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form denying Native American ancestry. At a January 2023 hearing, both parents’ attorneys agreed to try to get family information from the parents for purposes of ICWA inquiry. The maternal grandfather was present at the hearing and provided his telephone number. Father also provided his parents’ names and reported that they lived in Kansas. In its March 2, 2023, review report, the Department reported it had not received any updates indicating Native American ancestry from the paternal family, but it also did not indicate it had attempted to contact any maternal or paternal relatives. The Department requested the juvenile court find that the ICWA did not apply. At the March 7, 2023, review hearing, the juvenile court found the ICWA did not apply.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)