In re L.H. CA3

Filed 2/8/23 In re L.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----

In re L.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C096495 Law.

AMADOR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL (Super. Ct. No. 21-DP-0792) SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.G. (father), father of the minor, L.H. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the

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

1

Amador County Department of Social Services (the Department), the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Placer County and Amador County juvenile courts failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) because the Department did not contact extended family members to inquire about the ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) We will conditionally affirm subject to full compliance with the ICWA on remand, as described in this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts of the dependency are not at issue, and we do not recite them. We limit our recitation of the background to those facts relevant to the ICWA inquiry and noticing requirements. Father and mother La.H. (mother) have one minor child together, L.H. On May 6, 2020, law enforcement responded to the family home, pursuant to a search warrant, and mother was arrested and charged with multiple felonies. HHS was notified and took the minor into protective custody. On May 8, 2020, HHS filed a petition alleging that the minor (then age 15 months), came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. In the ICWA-010 form attached to the petition, HHS indicated the minor had no known Native American ancestry. At the May 11, 2020 detention hearing, mother and father both denied any Native American heritage, and the Placer County Juvenile Court determined that the ICWA did not apply.2 On May 22, 2020, HHS asked mother “if she knew about any Native American heritage and she stated there is no Native American heritage in her family.” On May 28, 2020, HHS asked father “if he knew of any Native American heritage and he