In re Alicia A. CA3

Filed 8/23/22 In re Alicia A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re Alicia A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C095275 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD240998) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.A. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders at the contested, combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing finding jurisdiction over Alicia A. (minor) and adopting the recommended findings and orders of the Sacramento County Department of

1

Child, Family and Adult Services (Department). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)(1).)1 Father’s contentions on appeal are limited to the Department and juvenile court’s compliance with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Specifically, father complains: (1) the Department failed to make adequate initial inquiries of father’s extended family concerning his ICWA status; (2) the Department failed to make adequate further inquiry into the minor’s mother, Re.B.’s (mother), possible Indian heritage by not interviewing all of mother’s known extended family members; (3) the Department failed in its further inquiry investigation because it failed to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); (4) the Department failed to adequately document its further ICWA inquiry efforts; and (5) the juvenile court failed to directly inquire concerning the ICWA status with various family members at postdetention proceedings. The Department does not oppose father’s request for a limited remand in order to assure compliance with the ICWA requirements. While we do not agree with all of father’s arguments, we conclude the matter must be remanded with directions to the Department and juvenile court to demonstrate compliance with the inquiry provisions of the ICWA and related California law, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. We will otherwise affirm. BACKGROUND In accordance with father’s limited issues on appeal, we focus on the information related to the ICWA claims. Following the minor’s birth and positive test for amphetamine and methamphetamine, the Department filed a section 300 petition on her behalf alleging the minor was a person described in subdivision (b)(1). The petition alleged the minor suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, harm due to substance