In re J.M. CA6

Filed 1/12/23 In re J.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the H049925 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20JD026552) SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Appellant J.M. (Mother) appeals from the findings and order made at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.262 selection and implementation hearing that the respondent, Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department), conducted an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that ICWA did not apply as to her child, J.M. The Department and Mother jointly move for a summary reversal of the order. The parties agree that the trial court

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 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless

otherwise noted.

failed to comply with ICWA, and request that we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA. We grant the motion and reverse the order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. In October 2020, the Department filed a dependency petition to remove J.M. from Mother’s care. In its initial hearing report, the Department stated that it had interviewed J.M.’s maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmother, and father (Father). J.M.’s grandmother reported that her family had Navajo and Apache heritage through J.M.’s maternal great-great-grandfather, who was born on an Apache reservation in Arizona, and that one of J.M.’s maternal great-great-grandmothers had Navajo heritage. J.M.’s grandmother reported that she did not have any further information. J.M.’s other maternal great-grandmother reported having no knowledge regarding Native American heritage. Father reported that, to his knowledge, he did not have Native American heritage. Finally, the Department reported that the court had made a finding that ICWA did not apply to the family in September 2005.3 At the initial hearing, Mother’s counsel reported that Mother might have additional information regarding the prior ICWA finding. It does not appear that any further ICWA inquiry was conducted between October 2020 and March 2021. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in March 2021, Father and J.M.’s maternal grandmother and grandfather testified. Father testified that, to his knowledge, he had Native American ancestry but did not know any specific tribal affiliation. J.M.’s