In re E.L. CA3

Filed 8/11/25 In re E.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

In re E.L., a Minor.

C.H. et al., C103465

Petitioners and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 24AB00101)

v.

J.N.,

Objector and Appellant.

Appellant Jessica N. (mother) appeals the probate court’s March 14, 2025, order freeing E.L. from her custody and control so that he could be adopted by his paternal grandparents, the respondents in this case. Mother contends the probate court failed to comply with its duties of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) because the probate court failed to order the court-appointed investigator to ask extended family members on the maternal and paternal side concerning possible Native American ancestry. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2.) Respondents disagree,

1

arguing the record shows a reasonable investigation supporting the probate court’s finding that the ICWA did not apply. We conclude the record reflects an incomplete further inquiry under the ICWA. Accordingly, we will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Authorities arrested mother for shooting and killing E.L.’s father on November 6, 2020. The same day, respondents, E.L.’s paternal grandmother and her husband took custody of E.L. Respondents obtained guardianship of E.L. on December 17, 2020, and have been E.L.’s sole care providers since November 6, 2020. On December 23, 2024, respondents filed a petition to free E.L. from mother’s custody and care under Probate Code section 1516.5 so that they could adopt E.L. According to the court investigator’s report filed January 23, 2025, paternal grandmother stated that E.L. had no Native American ancestry, nor tribal affiliation. Therefore, the report concluded the ICWA did not apply. The investigator attempted to interview mother at the county jail but was unable to do so due to staffing issues. It appears from the information in this report that paternal grandmother’s former husband, R.L., Jr., was E.L.’s paternal grandfather. At a hearing held January 24, 2025, respondents’ attorney asked the trial court to inquire if mother had any Native American heritage as required by the ICWA. Thereafter, mother told the court her half brother, A.D., was affiliated with the Navajo tribe and lived in Arizona. Mother may have had cousins with Native American ancestry and was not sure whether she had other siblings with Native American ancestry. Mother provided the names of maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather. She did not think maternal grandmother was affiliated with a tribe and did not know whether maternal grandfather was so affiliated. Mother did not know whether her grandparents, great-grandparents, or siblings were enrolled in a tribe because she was adopted. Mother thought maternal grandmother had tried to speak with her about tribal enrollment when she was a child.