In re A.H. CA6

Filed 6/25/24 In re A.H. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.H., et al., Persons Coming Under H051738 the Juvenile Court Law. (Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 23JD000106, 23JD000107, 23JD000108) MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.H.,

Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant R.H. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition orders declaring his children—A.H. (born 2008), R.H. (born 2012), and Ad.H. (born 2016)—dependents of the court and removing them from his custody. The children’s mother is deceased. Father contends respondent Monterey County Department of Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). The Department concedes the issue, and Father raises no others. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case for the

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 1

Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)

limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA. In November 2023, the Department initiated dependency proceedings following allegations of physical abuse by Father against the eldest child, A.H. It was alleged that all three children were at substantial risk of harm due to Father’s general neglect, and physical and emotional abuse, exacerbated by his excessive alcohol use. At the detention hearing, Father denied any Indian ancestry and signed a parental notification of Indian status form confirming the same. (See Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020.) Father, however, believed that the children’s deceased mother may have been a member of or eligible for membership with the Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. The Department interviewed the maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother, who both denied any Indian ancestry. Based on these interviews, the Department concluded that ICWA did not apply to the children. At the combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that, although the children’s mother was deceased, the Department had made a reasonable inquiry into her heritage and no person had suggested that the mother had any Indian heritage. After the contested hearing, the juvenile court entered its orders on January 16, 2024, which included its findings that ICWA did not apply, declaring the children dependents of the court, and removing them from Father’s care. We agree with the parties that there was an insufficient investigation regarding the children’s potential Indian ancestry through their mother. Once Father informed the Department that the children’s mother may have Indian ancestry, the Department had a duty to make a further inquiry. (In re I.F. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 152, 165-166; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (e).) Although the children’s mother is deceased, the Department did not contact the Cherokee tribe Father identified, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), or the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(B) & (C).) While the Department interviewed the maternal