In re A.L. CA3

Filed 4/5/23 In re A.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097011 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241502) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.E.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant B.E. (mother), mother of the minor, A.L. (the minor), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption.

1

(Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court and the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) because the Department did not contact extended family members to inquire about the ICWA. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department concedes the ICWA error and the need for a limited remand for further ICWA compliance but suggests conditional affirmance, rather than conditional reversal. Although mother opposes this remedy, we agree that conditional affirmance of the orders is warranted, subject to further ICWA compliance. 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. Mother and father E.L. (father) (collectively, the parents) have one minor child together, A.L. On August 20, 2021, the minor was taken into protective custody following a report regarding the parents’ substance abuse and mental health issues. On August 20, 2021, the Department filed a petition alleging that the minor (then age two months), came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. During the Department’s investigation of the referral, mother denied having any Native American ancestry. On the Indian Child Inquiry Attachment (Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-010(A)) attached to the petition, the Department indicated the minor had no known Native American ancestry. At the August 31, 2021, initial detention hearing, mother was absent, but father was present and informed the court that he had no Native American ancestry. Father also