Opinion
G061867
05-04-2023
In re J.L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. C.T. et al., Defendants and Appellants. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, C.T. Law Office of Marissa Coffey and Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, J.L. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Deborah B. Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nos. 22DP0394, 22DP0395, 22DP0396 Daphne Grace Sykes, Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part with directions.
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, C.T.
Law Office of Marissa Coffey and Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, J.L.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Deborah B. Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, J.
C.T. (Mother) and J.L. (Father) appeal from the dispositional order removing their three children, J.L., J.L.T., and M.L.T, (collectively Minors), from their custody. They contend there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Minors would be at substantial risk in their care and that there were no reasonable means to protect them absent removal. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 361, subd. (c)(1).) They also argue, and the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) concedes, SSA did not adequately investigate Minors' heritage under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.: ICWA). We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the disposition and affirm. But we vacate the court's finding that ICWA did not apply and remand for further proceedings.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS
Detention
Mother and Father have six children. Three children are at issue in the instant case: J.L. (age 13), J.L.T. (age 12), and M.L.T. (age 6). In March 2022, Minors were taken into protective custody.
According to SSA's detention report, Father was arrested for child endangerment on March 25, 2022. On that day, he threw water on J.L. to wake her up. When she refused to wake up, Father grabbed her by the legs and dragged her into the living room. J.L. then hit her right rib area on a small table. She reported she was hurting and started pushing Father, yelling at him, and throwing a shoe at him. Father pushed her several times and threw her over a table and sofa. J.L. reported she hit her head on a table. Although Mother witnessed the incident, she did not intervene. Instead, she took a video of the incident to later show Father the inappropriateness of his actions. J.L. called the police, and officers responded and reviewed video footage of the incident.
The detention report noted SSA was concerned Father would continue to physically abuse Minors and that Mother could not protect Minors. Mother and Father blamed J.L. for not following the household rules and chores, which resulted in Father's actions. When speaking with SSA, Mother expressed frustration with J.L. and said, "It was not fair . . . Father was arrested as [J.L.] ha[d] attacked him first." She "expressed inequity at . . . Father being arrested and not the child." While she claimed Father had not thrown water on J.L., she stated they instructed J.L.T. to throw water on J.L. because she would not wake up to do chores. Mother further told SSA: "[T]his Country was the land of opportunity but not with Law Enforcement or Social Workers as those agencies prevent parents from disciplining their children as a parent would like to and stated that was the cause of societies [sic] gang problems, teen pregnancies, and delinquency."
Father reported a doctor informed him that J.L. had depression, but they had not sought any mental health treatment for J.L. Father also denied hitting J.L. or knowing why he was arrested. Finally, the detention report detailed the family's extensive child welfare history beginning in 2008.
Soon after the March 2022 incident, SSA filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (c). The petition alleged, inter alia, that Father physically abused J.L., and J.L.T. and M.L.T. were at risk of similar physical abuse. According to the petition, J.L. reported Father regularly hit her and her siblings. J.L.T. similarly reported Father regularly hit his siblings, including striking J.L. with an open hand and closed fist. The petition noted SSA investigated child abuse allegations in February 2022, and Mother agreed she would not allow Father to hit the children. Father also agreed to not hit the children. But on March 25, 2022, Father "forcibly dragged and hit" J.L. During this time, Mother and J.L.T. engaged in a physical altercation. Father was subsequently arrested. While Mother acknowledged Father's actions were inappropriate, the petition alleged Mother believed Father was unfairly arrested and she intended to allow him to return to their home. The petition concluded Mother failed to protect Minors from Father's physical abuse and was unwilling to take appropriate protective action in the future. Finally, the petition detailed Father's criminal history, which included convictions and/or arrests for corporal injury to spouse, willful cruelty to a child, and rearrest or revocation of probation.
After a detention hearing, the court detained Minors and authorized supervised visitation for Mother and Father.
SSA's Jurisdiction/Disposition Reports
In May 2022, July 2022, and August 2022, SSA filed jurisdiction/disposition reports recommending the court sustain the petition and declare all three children dependents. According to the reports, SSA met with J.L. in April 2022. J.L. indicated she was happy at her current placement and had been suspended once from school for ingesting THC edibles. She also said she "constantly gets in trouble," "skips class," "walks out of class," "talks back to school staff," "verbally abuses her teachers and does not turn her assignments in." She reported her mental health was good because she was away from her home and Father, who hit them and threw objects when angry. She also said she was seeing a therapist and enjoyed the sessions. In addition to describing her home life as abusive and stressful, she said she tried to hang herself the night before the March 2022 incident, but Mother stopped her. When the social worker asked if the scars on J.L.'s wrist were "part of the same issue," J.L. agreed and said she was tired of the verbal abuse at home. She explained Father called her derogatory terms. Although she visited with her parents, she said she did not enjoy the visits.
SSA also spoke with J.L.T. in April 2022. J.L.T. denied emotional abuse at home but admitted Father physically punished him and his siblings when they refused to help with chores. He added that Father physically abused J.L. the most. Finally, J.L.T. said he was sad to be separated from his parents.
As of May 2022, Mother and Father were participating in parent education but had not yet started individual counseling. They also reported they participated in visits with Minors. Mother shared she did not want to move out or have Father move out of their home. By the end of May 2022, Mother and Father successfully completed parenting education.
With respect to Minors, J.L.T. and M.L.T. were placed in a foster home together. Their caregiver reported she did not have any concerns, and the visits with Mother and Father were going well. J.L.T. and M.L.T. similarly reported they were comfortable in their placement and felt safe.
Meanwhile, J.L. remained at Orangewood Children and Family Center (OCFC) in May 2022. She exhibited escalating negative behaviors and refused to attend school because she did not feel safe there. She also reported the visits with her parents were going well but noted a situation where Father "was making her feel guilty" about the dependency proceeding.
In June 2022, Mother and Father indicated they were on a waitlist for individual counseling. Father also said he would begin anger management classes at the end of the month.
As of June 2022, J.L. was placed in a foster home where she was happy. She told SSA she wanted to continue therapy and that she had "a boyfriend who was born female." In July 2022, J.L.'s caregiver reported J.L. was doing well but thought she was affected by her boyfriend's mental health issues. J.L. admitted to cutting her arms before being moved to her current placement. She also reported she continued to visit with her parents and the visits were going well.
In August 2022, Mother told SSA she wanted Minors at home under her care. She thought it was ridiculous she was asked to go to a domestic violence shelter and emphasized she would not choose between her husband and her children. She did not want to divorce Father. Both Mother and Father confirmed they started individual counseling and completed two to three individual sessions. Father's provider for anger management also informed SSA that Father had completed 10 out of 12 classes. Father followed along with the topics and had a positive attitude.
In September 2022, Father's therapist reported Father had been attending counseling sessions but missed two of them. One of the missed sessions was due to a hearing in the dependency case. The therapist also reported Father "did lack insight" into SSA's involvement during the first few sessions, but he "has shown some progress and is beginning to develop insight" into SSA's involvement. The therapist further noted Father recognized he needed to make changes and was working on developing new coping skills and taking on new activities to help with anger management. Father also was working on improving his communication. The therapist concluded Father was "slowly showing progress."
Mother's therapist reported Mother attended all sessions, actively participated, and was motivated. Although Mother lacked insight at the beginning of therapy, she was beginning to develop some insight as to SSA's involvement.
Around the same time, J.L. was hospitalized in September 2022 due to selfharm and suicidal thoughts. She had cut herself after an argument with her caregiver. Upon assessment, it was determined J.L. had trouble sleeping, flashbacks, and nightmares. She also had a "low will to live for the past six months." After the hospital stay, J.L. returned to OCFC.
Despite Mother and Father's participation in their case plan services, SSA recommended Minors remain in out-of-home care. SSA believed Mother and Father needed to gain insight into the events leading to SSA's involvement and to strengthen their parenting strategies. SSA also was concerned Father would continue to physically abuse Minors, and Mother would fail to protect them.
Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
J.L., Mother, Father, and the social worker testified at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in August and September 2022.
A. J.L.'s Testimony
J.L. testified Father began hitting her and her siblings when they were "small," and it was "worse" when she was around 11 years old. Father hit her often for not taking care of her brothers, not cleaning, not eating, or not behaving. But she did not believe Father would hit her again if she went back home. She also testified her parents fought verbally and physically every six months, and Mother told her on several occasions that she would divorce Father. J.L. did not believe Mother would follow through with a divorce. When asked what she wanted, J.L. testified she wanted to go back home to live with her parents and siblings. She noted she had 12-hour visits on Saturdays with Mother and Father, and the visits were supervised by her adult sisters. She enjoyed the visits and believed Father had changed because he was patient and did not react quickly to her mood changes. She also testified Mother and Father told her they learned their lesson and acknowledged what they did was wrong.
B. Mother's Testimony
Mother testified Father never abused Minors, and she denied Father ever hit, punched, or dragged J.L. With respect to the March 2022 incident, Mother testified she did not think anything inappropriate had happened. According to Mother, Father asked J.L. to help with a chore, and J.L. threw a shoe at him. Father pushed J.L., and she fell back in the chair. When asked if Father did anything inappropriate during the incident, Mother testified he should not have pushed J.L. But she was not concerned J.L. showed video footage of the incident to police because she did not believe it showed "anything had happened." She later testified she regretted recording the incident on her phone because "there wouldn't be any evidence" if she had not recorded. Although J.L. testified Father had dragged her by the legs into the living room, Mother claimed J.L. lies. She also believed J.L.T. told SSA Father dragged J.L. because J.L.T. was afraid of J.L.
With respect to her relationship with Father, Mother denied that she and Father had any verbal disagreements since 2008. When asked what led to Father's arrest in 2008, Mother testified Father hit one of their older children with a shoe, which she did not consider to be domestic violence. Mother testified she "became angry," "called the police," and Father "was arrested." Mother also testified she told J.L. she would divorce Father "to make her happy" because J.L. did not like how Father was strict. But Mother indicated she had no intention of divorcing Father.
Finally, Mother testified she and Father "learned a lot" from the services they were receiving. Mother observed Father had improved, was communicating better with Minors, and played with them. She also testified she was willing to follow a safety plan and participate in in-home services if Minors were returned to her care.
C. Father's Testimony
Father testified he completed a parenting course and an anger management program. He indicated he learned a lot from the parenting class, including how to communicate with his children. As to the anger management classes, he testified he learned "to think first and think [of] the consequences of what [he was] doing." But he denied having an anger problem and described himself as "calm." He also testified he would not put his hands on his children in the future.
As to individual counseling, Father testified he continued to participate in counseling for his "safety." When asked if he went to therapy because he contemplated suicide, Father testified: "Of course." He later explained he did not contemplate suicide but had a suicidal thought in 2013 or 2014, which was a side effect of his blood pressure medication. When asked if he had been diagnosed with any mental health issues, Father testified he suffered a brain injury when he was a child in El Salvador and the "Ronald Reagan Administration" dropped bombs on marginalized populations. But he did not believe the injury caused any long-term psychological problems. He also testified he spoke about Minors with his therapist.
When asked if he believed J.L. was a liar, Father testified: "On the one part, yes." He also agreed J.L. was manipulating him, Mother, and the system. He further testified he and Mother visited J.L. at the hospital, and J.L. indicated she wanted to escape from there. Father believed J.L. should be returned to his and Mother's care but agreed it would depend on what the doctors recommended. If J.L. cut herself in the future, Father indicated he would call the police.
D. Social Worker's Testimony
Among other things, the social worker testified domestic violence was an ongoing issue with the family. He also testified he believed Mother and Father lacked insight. When asked why he thought they lacked insight, he testified "blaming [J.L.] is the biggest thing for me." He added that another factor was Mother and Father indicating J.L. was a liar. He noted Mother had said she thought J.L. should have been arrested and that Father was unfairly arrested. Given their lack of insight, he did not think Minors should be returned to Mother and Father at that time.
Although SSA considered releasing Minors to Mother's custody under a CRISP agreement (Conditional Release to Intensive Supervision Program), the social worker testified Mother was unwilling to separate from Father. This concerned the social worker because Mother was choosing Father over her children. The social worker accordingly was concerned Mother would not protect Minors or report future incidents of domestic violence. The social worker also testified he was concerned about J.L.'s mental health if she was returned to her parents' care. He did not think Mother and Father had addressed how to appropriately handle J.L.'s mental health. The social worker recommended reunification services and believed Mother and Father would benefit from additional counseling and conjoint therapy with J.L. The social worker further testified J.L.'s older sister, G.L., who was not involved in the underlying proceedings, was an appropriate supervisor for Minors' visits with Mother and Father.
Finally, the social worker testified J.L.'s self-harming behaviors existed before she was taken into protective custody. As an example, he noted J.L. had told him she tried to hang herself the night before the March 2022 incident.
The Court's Ruling
The court sustained the petition as to the allegations of physical abuse, finding Minors fell within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The court also found there was clear and convincing evidence that section 361, subdivision (c) applied, removed Minors from Mother and Father's custody, and ordered family reunification services.
DISCUSSION
Mother and Father contend the court erred by removing Minors from their care. They also argue SSA failed to comply with its initial inquiry obligations under ICWA. Substantial evidence supports the court's dispositional order, which removed Minors from the physical custody of their parents. But we agree SSA failed to satisfy its duty of inquiry under ICWA. We accordingly vacate the court's finding that ICWA did not apply and remand for further proceedings.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Court's Decision to Remove Minors from Their Parents' Custody
Section 361, subdivision (c) provides: "A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her parents . . . unless the juvenile court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following circumstances .... [¶] (1) There is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor's physical health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor's parent's . . . physical custody." "The parent need not be dangerous and the child need not have been actually harmed before removal is appropriate." (In re A.E. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 820, 825-826.) "The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child." (In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917.)
An order removing a child from parental custody is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (In re A.E., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 826.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's judgment and resolve all conflicts in favor of the judgment. (Ibid.)
Here, substantial evidence supported the court's conclusion that returning Minors to Mother and Father's care posed a substantial danger to their health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. Although Mother and Father suggest Minors were not at risk at the time of the disposition hearing, the record shows otherwise. Mother and Father participated in parenting classes and individual counseling while Father also participated in anger management classes, but they had not shown adequate insight into what had happened. Father's therapist testified Father lacked insight into SSA's involvement and had just started to slowly show some progress at the time of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Likewise, Mother's therapist indicated Mother lacked insight at the start of therapy but was beginning to develop some insight into SSA's involvement. Both Mother and Father generally claimed J.L. lied, and Mother minimized the March 2022 incident by suggesting nothing inappropriate had happened. Indeed, Mother believed Father was unfairly arrested. Contrary to J.L. and J.L.T.'s claims of physical abuse, Mother claimed Father never physically abused Minors. "[D]enial is a factor often relevant to determining whether persons are likely to modify their behavior in the future without court supervision." (In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044.) Likewise, a parent's "failure to recognize the risks to which [he or] she was exposing the minor [leaves] no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the minor remain in [his or] her home." (In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293.) Finally, there was abundant evidence regarding J.L.'s mental health issues and self -harming behaviors. It does not appear Mother and Father had adequately addressed how to handle J.L.'s mental health if she were returned to their care at this stage of the proceedings.
Mother argues other evidence shows she and Father were not in denial about what had happened. She notes she testified Father should not have pushed J.L., Father testified he would not use physical discipline in the future, and J.L. testified her parents had apologized to her. But '""[w]e do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, [instead, we] merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court."'" (In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 114, 123.)
Mother and Father also contend their positive, unsupervised visitation with Minors demonstrated there was no substantial risk to Minors. At the outset, we note J.L. testified she had 12-hour visits with her parents, but the social worker clarified the unsupervised visits were only one day a week for seven hours. Regardless, based on SSA's jurisdiction/disposition report, it appears Minors only had two unsupervised visits prior to the court's ruling. Thus, while there were no concerns with those visits, we cannot find two unsupervised visits demonstrate Mother and Father did not present a risk to Minors.
Finally, Father relies on In re A.E., but the facts in that case are distinguishable. In In re A.E., the court found the juvenile court erred by removing a three-year-old girl from her father's custody based on one occasion of discipline where he spanked her with a belt on the legs and buttocks. (In re A.E., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at pp. 822, 826-827.) The court emphasized the father was remorseful, committed to learning better discipline methods, had no history with the social services agency, and no criminal record. (Id. at pp. 822, 826.)
Here, unlike in In re A.E., the physical abuse was ongoing and SSA's first involvement with the family was in 2008 followed by subsequent child welfare referrals and investigations. There also was evidence Mother denied any physical abuse, and both Mother and Father claimed J.L. lied.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the court's findings, the evidence supported the court's conclusion there would be a substantial danger to Minor's health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.
We also are not persuaded by Mother and Father's suggestion that removal could have been avoided by ordering Minors placed with them on condition that G.L., Minors' adult sibling, continue to live with them. G.L. is 19 years old and protecting Minors was not her responsibility. In any event, the court did not have authority to order G.L. to stay in the home. Father also emphasizes their family would be under supervision by their service providers who would offer sufficient protection. As SSA properly notes, these providers have relatively brief contact with the family. Given the nature of the physical abuse, J.L.'s history with self-harming behaviors, including an attempt to hang herself while in her parents' care, we cannot fault the court for rejecting such alternatives.
Finally, Mother and Father contend the court failed to state its factual basis for removal on the record. Section 361, subdivision (e) provides in pertinent part that "[t]he court shall make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or to eliminate the need for removal of the minor from his or her home" and "[t]he court shall state the facts on which the decision to remove the minor is based." (§ 361, subd. (e).) Although the failure to make factual findings is error, the failure is deemed harmless if "'it is not reasonably probable such finding, if made, would have been in favor of continued parental custody.'" (In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1218.) As discussed, ante, the dispositional order was supported by substantial evidence. The court's failure to make the required findings was harmless error as "it is not reasonably probable that the juvenile court would have reached a different conclusion if it stated the facts it relied upon." (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147, 159.)
SSA Failed to Satisfy Its Duty of Inquiry Under ICWA
A. Relevant Background
As noted, ante, SSA filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (c). The petition attached a judicial council form ICWA-010(A), which stated SSA questioned Mother and Father "about the child's Indian status." The inquiry "gave [SSA] no reason to believe the child is or may be an Indian child." On their form ICWA-020, Mother and Father reported they had no Indian ancestry.
According to SSA's detention report, Mother and Father "denied Native American heritage" on March 29, 2022. The report further identified Minors' four adult sisters: P.L., Jo.L., M.L., and G.L. Mother told SSA Jo.L. lived in Colorado and M.L. lived in Santa Ana. She also reported the latter two sisters had agreed to be considered as possible placement options for Minors.
At the detention hearing, the court asked counsel for Mother and Father whether ICWA applied, and both responded ICWA did not apply. The court then stated: "[T]he JV forms have been submitted on behalf of Mother and Father with reference to ICWA. And the court would find that there's no indication that ICWA applies."
SSA subsequently filed a jurisdiction/disposition report, which noted Mother and Father were born in El Salvador. The maternal grandparents and Mother's six siblings lived in El Salvador. The paternal grandparents, who were deceased, were also from El Salvador.
B. Applicable Law
The juvenile court and the county welfare department (here, SSA) "have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child" who is the subject of a dependency petition "is or may be an Indian child." (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) The duties imposed by ICWA on the juvenile court and a county welfare agency can be separated into three phases: (1) a duty to inquire, (2) a duty of further inquiry, and (3) a duty to provide ICWA notice. (In re D.F. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558, 566-567.)
The first phase - the initial duty of inquiry - "begins with the initial contact" and, includes "asking the party reporting child abuse or neglect whether the party has any information that the child may be an Indian child." (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) When the child is placed in temporary custody, the county welfare department has a duty to inquire whether the child may be of Native American ancestry. (Id., subd. (b).) "Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child and where the child, the parents, or Indian custodian is domiciled." (Ibid.) The juvenile court has a duty at the first appearance of each parent to ask whether he or she "knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child." (Id., subd. (c).) The court must instruct the parties to inform the court if any of them later receives "information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child." (Ibid.) The court must also require each parent to complete a Judicial Council form ICWA-020. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).)
The second phase - the duty of further inquiry - arises if the court or social worker "has reason to believe that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding." (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) This duty of further inquiry includes (1) interviewing parents and extended family members to gather certain information (id., subd. (e)(2)(A)), (2) "[c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the State Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying the . . . tribes in which the child may be a member, or [be] eligible for membership" (id., subd. (e)(2)(B)), and (3) "[c]ontacting the tribe or tribes and any other person [who] may reasonably be expected to have information regarding the child's membership, citizenship status, or eligibility" (id., subd. (e)(2)(C); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4) [same requirements]). Contact with a tribe "shall, at a minimum, include telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail contact to each tribe's designated agent for receipt of notices under [ICWA]" and "include sharing information identified by the tribe as necessary for the tribe to make a membership or eligibility determination, as well as information on the current status of the child and the case." (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(C).)
The third phase is triggered if, after the duties of inquiry and of further inquiry are fulfilled, the court or the county welfare agency "knows or has reason to know . . . that an Indian child is involved" in the dependency proceedings. (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) The third phase requires notice pursuant to ICWA be given to the tribes identified in the first two phases to give them the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. (Id., subd. (a)(1); In re D.F., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 568.)
C. Analysis
Mother and Father contend SSA failed to satisfy its duty of inquiry as to G.L., Minors' other adult siblings, the maternal grandparents, and the maternal aunts and uncles. Mother further argues the court failed to make an adequate ICWA inquiry because it did not question G.L. at the detention hearing or direct SSA to complete its ICWA inquiry. SSA concedes, and we agree, it did not meet its duty of inquiry as to the extended family members. "A family member's belief that a child may have Indian ancestry or heritage must be investigated. The duty to inquire 'obligates the juvenile court and child protective agencies to ask all relevant involved individuals whether the child may be an Indian child.'" (In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15, 29.) This includes "[interviewing the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family members to gather information . . . ." (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A), italics added.) Here, the record does not demonstrate SSA asked the extended family members about any potential Native American ancestry.
DISPOSITION
The court's finding that ICWA did not apply is vacated. The matter is remanded with instructions to SSA and the court to fulfill their ICWA duties. The disposition order is otherwise affirmed.
WE CONCUR: GOETHALS, ACTING P. J. DELANEY, J.