In re S.K. CA6

Filed 8/31/22 In re S.K. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re S.K., a Person Coming Under the H049837 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 21JU0014)

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellants, C.C. and N.K., appeal from an order terminating their parental rights as to S.K. The sole issue raised on appeal is that the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with their duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.22; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) The Department concedes that the inquiry was insufficient and

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.) 2 Subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

concedes that the matter should be reversed and remanded for further inquiry as to whether ICWA applies to C.C., but contends there has been no miscarriage of justice with respect to N.K. We conclude that the Department’s investigation was prejudicially insufficient and reverse and remand for the limited purpose of assuring compliance with ICWA. Shortly after S.K.’s birth, the Department received a report of general neglect. After completing an investigation, the Department filed a section 300 petition alleging that C.C. and N.K. abused controlled substances and that this negatively impacted their ability to provide safe and appropriate care for S.K. At the detention hearing, N.K. reported having no known Indian ancestry and the court found ICWA did not apply as to him. C.C. reported having taken a DNA test that indicated she was 6 percent Native American but did not specify a tribe. C.C. and N.K. each filed Parental Notification of Indian Status forms consistent with these statements. C.C. also informed the Department that her deceased great-grandfather appeared Native American. The Department contacted several of C.C.’s relatives regarding potential Indian ancestry. C.C.’s mother reported that C.C.’s great-grandfather might have had indigenous ancestry from Mexico. C.C.’s great-grandmother reported that C.C.’s great- grandfather had mentioned his family had Native American ancestry but was unsure of the tribe. A maternal cousin three times removed reported being 17 percent Native American according to a DNA test but did not identify a specific tribe. Finally, C.C.’s great-aunt reported believing that her brother, C.C.’s great-uncle, had received healthcare from an Indian healthcare center while residing there. Because no specific tribe had been identified, the Department sent an ICWA notice outlining C.C.’s ICWA family history to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The BIA responded that the notice contained insufficient information to determine tribal affiliation. The Department made no further inquiry regarding possible Indian ancestry.