In re H.M. CA3

Filed 8/1/23 In re H.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C098148 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241591) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant L.M., mother of 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 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the Sacramento County

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

1

Department of Child, Family 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. The Department filed a letter in response stating it did not oppose a limited remand for further ICWA compliance and the parties agree that conditional affirmance is appropriate.2 We agree that conditional affirmance is warranted, subject to further ICWA compliance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issue on appeal is limited to ICWA compliance, we dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts and procedural history. It suffices to say that on October 1, 2021, mother, a 19-year-old non-minor dependent of the San Joaquin County Superior Court, was arrested and her eight-month-old baby, the minor, was taken into protective custody. The Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor and a detention report representing that, on October 4, 2021, mother had denied having any Native American heritage. Mother would not provide any information about the minor’s father, although the Department learned that the child support database listed K.S. as the minor’s father. Mother did provide the Department with the maternal great grandparents’ address and the social worker noted that several relatives had contacted the Department to inquire about the minor’s well-being. The Department did not document any effort to inquire about the minor’s possible Native American ancestry from any of the maternal relatives. Mother was not present at the October 13, 2021, detention hearing. The juvenile court found there was no reason to know or believe the minor was an Indian child within