In re S.R. CA2/8

BACKGROUND

We limit our recitation of the facts to those relevant to the matter before the court. Though S.R. was also the subject of prior dependency proceedings, this case began in 2019. In the detention report, mother and N. father claimed Indian heritage. They did not know which tribes but said they would obtain more information. (In re S.R., supra, B307302.)

We use the term “Indian” as it is defined in section 1903 of title 25 of the United States Code.

2 Mother completed but refused to sign an ICWA-020 parental notification of Indian status form. On the form she wrote she might have “ ‘Cherokee and other’ ” Indian affiliations, “ ‘but not sure of the tribe.’ ” (In re S.R., supra, B307302.) When the investigator from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) asked mother for information about maternal grandparents as part of the Department’s inquiry, mother declined to provide any. (Ibid.) N. father did not file an ICWA-020 form. (In re S.R., supra, B307302.) However, he told a Department social worker he was Native American: “ ‘Chief, Cheyenne, Cherokee.’ ” (Ibid.) Mother and father thereafter refused to cooperate with the…