In re G.J. CA1/5

Filed 1/18/24 In re G.J. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re G.J., A168579 A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Humboldt County ___________________________________ Super. Ct. No. JV2200176) HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.L., Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 B.L. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to G.J. following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.2 Mother contends the Humboldt County Department of

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

1

Health and Human Services (the Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law (§ 224 et seq.) by not questioning extended family members as to whether G.J. might be of Indian descent. Citing this court’s conditional affirmance and remand for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA and California law in an appeal involving G.J.’s sibling (see Humboldt County Department of Health v. B.L. (Aug. 22, 2023, A166846) [nonpub. opn.]), the Department concedes that a limited remand for the same purpose is warranted here. We agree and conditionally affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights and remand for the limited purposes of compliance with ICWA and state law. The Department detained G.J. pursuant to a juvenile dependency petition under section 300 (petition). In its detention report, the Department noted that Mother was affiliated with the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. However, the Department stated it did not believe ICWA applied based on an inquiry made of these same tribes in a prior juvenile dependency case involving G.J.’s sibling. Upon ordering G.J. detained, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply. In its jurisdiction report, the Department again stated that ICWA did not apply. The report also referenced G.J.’s maternal grandmother but did not mention any efforts to contact the grandmother about G.J.’s possible Native American ancestry. The juvenile court sustained the petition. In its disposition report, the Department noted that “[n]o new information regarding [G.J.’s] Native American ancestry has been received.” But the report made no mention of any efforts to ask the maternal grandmother or three other maternal relatives identified in an attached