In re A.H. CA3

Filed 10/27/23 In re A.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C098764 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241150) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant K.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing A.H. (the minor) for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,

1

§§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother asks us to remand the matter for further Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance because the initial inquiry by the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2.) The Department does not oppose such remand. We will conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s orders and remand for ICWA compliance. BACKGROUND On February 22, 2021, the Department sought a protective custody warrant and filed a petition alleging that the minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect, based on domestic violence in the home of Al.H. (father), who had sole legal and physical custody of the minor and her sibling. The juvenile court vacated a protective custody warrant, temporarily detained the minor, then later detained the minor. Father and mother both said they had no Native American ancestry. Although the Department had identified and communicated with a number of the minor’s relatives, Department reports did not indicate whether the Department asked extended family members about the minor’s potential Native American ancestry. On March 2, 2021, the juvenile court asked both parents about Native American ancestry and noted that the parents said they had no such ancestry. The juvenile court found there was no reason to know or believe the minor was an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. The juvenile court did not make further findings regarding ICWA.