Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JD227239, JD227240
HULL, J.
L.D., father of the minors, appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 360, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) He contends the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq., were not met. We reverse conditionally and remand the matter for further ICWA proceedings.
ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian children and Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(l), 1911(c), 1912.) The juvenile court and Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.3, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a) (hereafter rule 5.481).) If DHHS knows or has reason to know that an Indian child may be involved, it must make further inquiry. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); rule 5.481(a)(4).) Proper inquiry includes interviewing the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family members to gather the information necessary to complete notice. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); rule 5.481(a)(4)(A).) Thereafter, notice of the pending proceeding and the right to intervene must be sent to the tribe or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) if the tribal affiliation is not known. (§ 224.2; rule 5.481(b)(1); 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)
“The burden is on [DHHS] to obtain all possible information about the minor’s potential Indian background and provide that information to the relevant tribe or, if the tribe is unknown, to the BIA.” (In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630.) “In addition to the information specified in other sections of this article, notice shall include all of the following information: [¶] (A) The name, birthdate, and birthplace of the Indian child, if known. [¶] (B) The name of the Indian tribe in which the child is a member or may be eligible for membership, if known. [¶] (C) All names known of the Indian child’s biological parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, or Indian custodians, including maiden, married and former names or aliases, as well as their current and former addresses, birthdates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment numbers, and any other identifying information, if known....” (§ 224.2, subd. (a)(5).) Failure to comply with the notice provisions and to determine whether ICWA applies is prejudicial error. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 472; In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1424.)
Appellant identifies several defects in the ICWA inquiry and notice in this case. DHHS did not file a respondent’s brief and has informed this court that new notice has been sent. We will set forth the defects to ensure compliance on remand.
First, DHHS failed to interview Antoinette C., the mother’s great aunt. Antoinette C. indicated that, although the mother did not have the pertinent information, she had information that mother had both Cherokee and Blackfeet heritage. DHHS attempted to interview Annette W., the maternal grandmother, who did not provide any information regarding mother’s Indian heritage.
Second, after failing to obtain any information about mother’s Indian heritage, DHHS indicated on the notice form that the “tribe or band” did “not apply” to mother or any of her relatives.
Third, two of the minors’ names were misspelled on the initial notice provided to the tribes, although we acknowledge that correction letters were subsequently sent.
Fourth, the notice provided to the tribes indicated that it was “unknown” whether appellant had acknowledged parentage. Appellant has acknowledged being the father of the minors since inception of this case and has held them as his own in the community.
Finally, DHHS incorrectly informed the noticed tribes that Clara H./W. had Blackfeet or Blackfoot heritage, when she actually had Cherokee heritage. Along those same lines, DHHS incorrectly informed the noticed tribes that Sinclair H. had Cherokee heritage, when he actually had Blackfeet or Blackfoot heritage.
These errors resulted in incomplete inquiry and incorrect notice. Accordingly, we remand to ensure compliance with ICWA.
Disposition
The disposition order is vacated and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order DHHS to make proper inquiry and to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. If after proper and complete notice, the BIA or a tribe determines the minors are Indian children as defined by ICWA, the juvenile court is ordered to conduct a new disposition hearing in conformity with all provisions of ICWA. If, on the other hand, no response is received or the tribes and the BIA determine the minors are not Indian children, the court shall reinstate the disposition order.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.