In re T.G. CA4/1

Filed 4/28/22 In re T.G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.G., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D080038 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J520793B) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rohanee Zapanta, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.

M.G. (Father) appeals from an order issued at the contested disposition hearing where the juvenile court denied his request for reunification services and found without prejudice that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) did not apply. Counsel for Father and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency, together the parties)

have conferred and agree that the Agency’s investigation under the ICWA was inadequate under the relevant statutory and decisional authority. The parties filed a joint stipulation seeking the issuance of an immediate remittitur. We accept the stipulation, conditionally reverse, and remand for compliance with the ICWA. In July 2021, Father initially told a social worker that he had no Native American heritage but later disclosed possible Cherokee heritage in his maternal and paternal lineages. Mother, A.M., claimed possible Cherokee ancestry through the maternal great-great-grandmother. Father and Mother ultimately denied Indian ancestry at a hearing held in September 2021. The parties agree that the Agency did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry in this case by failing to inquire of available extended family members regarding any potential Indian ancestry. (Welf. & Inst. Code,

§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).)1 Additionally, the Agency did not include all known relatives on its ICWA-030 form, and the Agency sent the ICWA-030 form to some Cherokee tribes before it satisfied its initial inquiry duty. We also note additional issues not mentioned by the parties. First, the juvenile court failed to order the parents to complete the ICWA-020 form. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).) Although the parents ultimately denied Indian ancestry, this denial does not “relieve[] the [Agency] of its broad duty to seek that information from ‘all relevant’ individuals.” (In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554.) A contrary rule would “ignore[] the reality that parents may not know their possible relationship with or connection to an Indian tribe.” (Ibid.; In re S.R. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 303, 314 [“the children’s parents apparently had no idea of their family’s