In re A.H. CA3

Filed 3/25/24 In re A.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C099649 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241151) 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, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother requests the matter be remanded for further Indian Child

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

1

Welfare Act (ICWA) compliance proceedings 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 the ICWA does not apply. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 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 obtained 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 his sibling.2 Attached to the petition was an Indian child inquiry (ICWA-010) form indicating that when the Department asked father about Native American ancestry, father indicated he had no reason to believe there was any such ancestry. The juvenile court vacated the protective custody warrant and temporarily detained the minor, but later returned the minor to father’s custody. Father and mother both said they had no 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. They each provided parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020) forms confirming their denial of Native American ancestry. The juvenile court found there was no reason to know or believe the minor was an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. The juvenile court did not make subsequent findings regarding ICWA. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over the minor, adjudged him a dependent, and ordered him to remain in father’s custody with family maintenance services. Section 387