In re R.S. CA4/1

Filed 10/6/21 In re R.S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078942 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4424)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Reversed. Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Emily Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

K.J. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights over her daughter, R.S., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions

Code section 366.26.1 Mother contends the court erred by not complying with the inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes in a letter brief that a limited reversal and remand is appropriate to ensure ICWA compliance. In particular, the Agency concedes the juvenile court erred by failing to make express ICWA findings at the section 366.26 hearing. The Agency further concedes that this error was not harmless because at the time of the section 366.26 hearing, the Agency had not contacted the pertinent tribes following a claim of potential Indian heritage in R.S.’s paternal family, and thus the Agency had not satisfied the further inquiry requirements under ICWA. The Agency therefore requests a limited remand to permit the Agency to complete adequate further inquiry into R.S.’s potential claim of Indian heritage. We accept the Agency’s concession. We therefore conditionally reverse the orders entered at the section 366.26 hearing and remand for compliance with the further inquiry provisions of ICWA. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given the limited scope of this appeal, we provide an abbreviated summary of the dependency proceedings and focus on the facts relevant to the ICWA findings. The Agency initiated these dependency proceedings under section 300 subdivision (b)(1) on behalf of R.S. in July 2019, alleging there was a