In re S.T. CA1/4

I. BACKGROUND

We summarize only those facts relevant to the ICWA claim raised on appeal. The Bureau’s initial Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition, filed on March 15, 2013, noted that S.T. “may have Indian ancestry.” At the detention hearing on March 18, 2013, at which Judge Baskin presided, Mother completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form indicating she has Cherokee heritage. (See Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-20.) Upon review of that form, the court asked Mother to “tell [him] more about that.” Mother explained that her “mom’s grandmother” was “full- blooded Cherokee Indian” and was “a card carrying member.” Mother also said that her own mother (S.T.’s maternal grandmother and the person with whom S.T. was placed) would have any additional the information on the subject of S.T’s Indian heritage. The court responded, “Okay. All right. Then that will be the order that I’m making today.” On the written Findings and Orders After Detention Hearing form, a box was checked acknowledging that S.T. “may be [¶] an Indian child and the county agency must provide, as required by law, notice of the proceeding and of the tribe’s right to intervene in the…