Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J509380B, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
BACKGROUND
In June 2007 a few days after G.E.'s birth, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition and she was detained in foster care. According to the jurisdictional and dispositional report filed on July 25, G.E.'s mother, C.E., said she had Native American heritage through the Cherokee tribes. Additionally, the maternal grandmother said they might have Native American heritage and would forward the information to the social worker once she had contacted her relatives.
On August 23, 2007, C.E. filed a form naming Dennis R. as the father and stating he had American Indian heritage. She also filed a form stating she was or might be a member of Kumeyaay tribe, or eligible for membership in that tribe. C.E.'s counsel and the maternal grandmother told the juvenile court the grandmother had more information. The court directed the Agency to inquire into the applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). According to an addendum report filed on September 20, the Agency had not received any further information from the maternal grandmother regarding Native American heritage.
On November 20, 2007, Dennis signed and filed a JV-505 Statement Regarding Parentage declaring he was not the father. After examining Dennis, the court accepted the form. A paternity inquiry yielded no other possible fathers. The court entered a true finding on the petition, declared G.E. a dependent child, and ordered her placed in foster care. Near the end of the hearing, the maternal grandmother told the court "my great grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian" and "my grandmother was a half-Cherokee Indian [a]nd she was 13 when she married my grandfather, who was of the Blackfoot tribe . . . ." The maternal grandmother also said Cora L. had more information. The court deferred making any findings or orders regarding ICWA until the Agency obtained more information.
C.E. appeals, contending the court failed to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA and failed to comply with ICWA pending notice to identified tribes. The Agency concedes a limited remand is appropriate to effect an adequate ICWA inquiry and, if necessary after the inquiry, proper ICWA notice. C.E.'s counsel, G.E.'s counsel, and the Agency's counsel have filed a stipulation for immediate issuance of the remittitur, which we accept. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).)
DISCUSSION
Based on the facts above and applicable law, we remand the case for an ICWA inquiry, notice, and proceedings in conformance with ICWA. (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695.)
DISPOSITION
The dispositional judgment is reversed. This case is remanded to the juvenile court, with directions to conduct an ICWA inquiry, direct the Agency to give ICWA notice to any applicable Indian entities, and proceed in conformance with ICWA. If, after inquiry and notice, no tribe indicates G.E. is an Indian child, the court shall reinstate the judgment. The remittitur is to issue forthwith.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, J., McDONALD, J.