In re G.D. CA1/4

BACKGROUND

After medical tests confirmed severe physical abuse of then-infant G.D., the Bureau filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300 and removed G.D. from the home he shared with his parents and extended maternal family. A Bureau social worker questioned both Mother and Father about possible Indian ancestry and completed forms indicating that the inquiry gave the social worker no reason to believe G.D. is or may be an Indian child. Mother and Father completed separate forms, both indicating that they did not have Indian ancestry. Both parents had their own child welfare histories. At the detention hearing held two days after the removal, the court inquired of both parents, maternal grandmother, and maternal step-

2 Because ICWA uses the term “Indian” and “Indian child” we do so as

well, even though we recognize that other terms, such as Native American, Indigenous American, or American Indian may be preferable. (In re A.A. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 393, 396, fn. 1.)

2 grandfather concerning possible Indian ancestry; all denied any such ancestry. In the jurisdiction and detention report prepared for the hearing, the Bureau noted that the parents’ household was…