In re M.W. CA3

Filed 5/28/24 In re M.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C099640 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD241801) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellants Mi.W., father of the minor, M.W. (the minor), and G.B., mother of the minor, appeal from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 The parents contend the initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by the Sacramento County

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

1

Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) was insufficient because, although father and some maternal relatives claimed to have Native American ancestry, the Department failed to contact known relatives to inquire whether they knew of possible Native American ancestry and failed to contact multiple tribes. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; § 224.2.) The Department does not dispute that further ICWA compliance is warranted. We agree. I. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2022, the Department filed a petition alleging that the minor came within the provision of section 300, subdivision (b)(1), failure to protect. The Department asked the parents about possible Native American ancestry, and mother initially denied any such ancestry. However, father provided Parental Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) forms, stating he had Cherokee ancestry. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found that there was reason to believe the minor was an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA and directed the Department to conduct further inquiry. The Department inquired with the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, who both reported possible Blackfeet ancestry. The Department made one attempt to contact two additional maternal relatives but was unsuccessful. Although the Department did make an inquiry with the Blackfeet tribe, the letter did not include the maternal grandparents’ respective dates and places of birth. Additionally, the record does not disclose whether the Department made any effort to contact any paternal relatives regarding father’s claim of Cherokee ancestry. Thus, the Department made an informal inquiry with the Cherokee tribes without first obtaining any further pertinent information from the paternal grandfather, the purposed source of the minor’s potential Cherokee ancestry. The juvenile court found that the ICWA did not apply based on the responses from the Cherokee and Blackfoot tribes. Subsequently, at the contested selection and