California Court of Appeal Jan 12, 2026 No. E080501AUnpublished
Filed 1/12/26 In re G.H. CA4/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re G.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E080501
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWJ1700118)
v. OPINION
L.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Donal B. Donnelly,
Judge. (Retired judge of the Imperial Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Conditionally reversed.
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Prabhath Shettigar,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1
INTRODUCTION
L.C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights as
to his child, G.H. (the child). Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court
and the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply
As amended, section 224.2, subdivision (b)(2), now provides in relevant part: “‘If a child
is . . . received and maintained in temporary custody of a county welfare department
7
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 306, or taken into or maintained
in the temporary custody of a county welfare department pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 306, or if they were initially taken into protective custody
pursuant to a warrant described in Section 340, the county welfare department . . . has a
duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian child.’”
Essentially, Assembly Bill 81 “amended former section 224.2 to add language
specifying that the extended-family inquiry duty applies whenever a child is placed into a
county welfare department’s temporary custody, regardless of how the child is removed
from the home.” (Ja.O., supra, 18 Cal.5th at pp. 277.) Our Supreme Court recently held
that Assembly Bill 81 clarified, rather than changed, the law, and therefore this duty
applies in all cases, including cases that pre-date the enactment of Assembly Bill 81.
(See Id. at pp. 281-282, 291.)
B. DPSS Failed to Comply With Its ICWA Duty of Initial Inquiry
DPSS failed to inquire of several extended family members who were reasonably
available in this case. DPSS had contact with a maternal aunt, the paternal grandmother,
two paternal aunts, and a paternal uncle.3 However, there is no evidence that it asked
those relatives about the child’s possible Indian ancestry. DPSS erred by failing to
discharge its duty of initial inquiry with respect to those extended family members.
Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s implied finding that
DPSS conducted an adequate and proper ICWA inquiry. We therefore conditionally
3 The record includes the specific name of only one of the paternal aunts (K.C.) Nonetheless, the record indicates DPSS had contact with the other enumerated relatives. 8
reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for DPSS to conduct a proper
inquiry. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1141.)
DISPOSITION
We conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights. We remand the
matter to the juvenile court with directions to comply with the inquiry provisions of
ICWA and of sections 224.2 and 224.3 — and, if applicable, the notice provisions as
well — consistent with this opinion. If, after completing the inquiry, neither DPSS nor
the court has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, then the court shall reinstate
the order terminating parental rights. If DPSS has reason to know the child is an Indian
child, the court shall proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J. RAPHAEL J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court conditionally reversed the termination of parental rights because the Department of Public Social Services failed to fulfill its duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act by neglecting to ask available extended relatives about the child's potential Indian ancestry.
Issues
Whether the Department of Public Social Services failed to comply with the duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act by not questioning available extended relatives regarding the child's potential Indian ancestry.
Disposition. conditionally reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“DPSS failed to inquire of several extended family members who were reasonably available in this case.”
“DPSS erred by failing to discharge its duty of initial inquiry with respect to those extended family members.”