In re D.L. CA3

Filed 4/5/23 In re D.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097046 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD238366) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D.L. (mother) appeals from juvenile court orders terminating her parental rights and directing that D.L. (minor) be placed for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother contends the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child

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

1

Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because the Department failed to ask all relatives involved in the proceedings about minor’s potential Indian ancestry. We will conditionally affirm the juvenile court orders and remand the matter for further compliance with ICWA, including inquiry directed to minor’s paternal and maternal relatives. BACKGROUND In July 2017, minor’s father died in a car accident. A few weeks later, on a referral from a mandatory reporter, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of minor (born in October 2015). The minor was medically fragile and had serious health issues. The petition alleged general neglect. It alleged mother had mental health challenges affecting her ability to care for minor and that she had authorized contact between minor and another man that appeared inappropriate. According to the petition, mother told the Department minor has no known Indian ancestry. And in the detention report, the Department indicated there is no reported Native American heritage. Mother completed the ICWA-20 form stating she had “no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” At the detention hearing in 2017 (for which we do not have a reporter’s transcript), the juvenile court found there was “no evidence before the Court that [the] child is an Indian child within the meaning of [ICWA]. [¶] There is no reason to know the child is an Indian child. [¶] No further ICWA notice is required.” It ordered mother to disclose to the agency any other relatives of the minor. In its jurisdiction report, the Department attached a petition and order from a prior 2016 dependency case for minor’s full sibling. According to the prior petition, both mother and father claimed the sibling had no known Indian heritage. At the initial hearing in that case, the juvenile court found there was no evidence the sibling was an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. Those proceedings were ultimately