In re L.V. CA3

Filed 2/2/23 In re L.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C096476 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD239127) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant A.E., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

and Adult Services (Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. She further urges we should not find the error harmless, recognizing the various standards which have recently been applied to such errors. The Department does not dispute the inquiry in this case was inadequate under section 224.2, subdivision (b), and does not oppose a conditional affirmance with instructions for compliance with the ICWA. The only investigation or inquiry into mother’s possible Indian heritage apparent on the record is the Department’s statement that mother gave the Department no reason to believe the minor was an Indian child during a pre-detention interview and the juvenile court’s reference to mother’s ICWA- 020 form, which is not included in the appellate record. On this basis, the juvenile court found the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. We shall accept the Department’s concession. “The ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian children from their families, and by permitting tribal participation in dependency proceedings. [Citations.] A major purpose of the ICWA is to protect ‘Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.’ ” (In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 662.) The ICWA defines an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who “is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) The juvenile court and the Department have an affirmative and continuing duty, beginning at initial contact, to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) Due to changes in California law over the past few years, agencies now have a broader duty of inquiry and a duty of documentation (§ 224.2, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of