In re J.M. CA4/1

Filed 9/26/22 In re J.M. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH D080554 AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4679) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia Silva, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this dependency proceeding, the juvenile court granted J.M.’s petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to stop visits with

her mother, S.S. (Mother).1 Mother appeals that order, on the sole basis that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) and the juvenile court did not comply with their inquiry duties under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and section 224.2. She contends the Agency failed to ask paternal grandmother, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunt about the family’s possible Native American heritage, and it failed to make sufficient efforts to locate an additional 25 potential relatives it had contacted by mail as part of the family

finding efforts.2 The Agency concedes the error, acknowledging its “initial ICWA inquiry was deficient and failed to comply with . . . section 224.2, subdivision (b).” The Agency’s concession is proper. In California dependency proceedings, the juvenile court and Agency have an “affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child “is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) The Agency’s initial duty of inquiry includes “asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).) ICWA defines “ ‘extended family member’ ” by “the law or custom of the