In re A.B. CA3

Filed 8/28/23 In re A.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097516 Law.

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (Super. Ct. No. 53-005187) AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant A.H., mother of the minor (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) and the juvenile court failed to comply with the initial

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

1

inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and related California law. The Department does not dispute the inquiry in this case was inadequate and does not oppose a conditional affirmance with instructions for compliance with the ICWA. We shall conditionally affirm, subject to further ICWA compliance. We incorporate the relevant facts into our discussion of the issue. DISCUSSION A.B. was adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court following a jurisdiction and disposition hearing held on June 15, 2021. Reunification services were ordered for mother but denied for the then-alleged father. Finding that mother had made minimal progress in those services, and had not maintained regular visitation with A.B., the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services at the 12-month review hearing held on June 7, 2022, and a section 366.26 hearing was scheduled. The parents’ rights were subsequently terminated on October 25, 2022. Mother contends that, although the parents were asked about and denied Native American ancestry, the Department and the juvenile court nonetheless failed to fully comply with the initial inquiry requirements of the ICWA because available relatives were not asked about possible Native American ancestry. We shall accept the Department’s concession that conditional affirmance and remand for further ICWA compliance is appropriate. “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