In re K.M. CA1/5

BACKGROUND

We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issue on appeal. A. In August 2018, the Bureau filed a section 300 petition alleging mother failed to provide “basic necessities” for K.M., then seven years old. The petition averred Thomas M. was K.M.’s alleged father. Mother and Thomas are not married. The court detained K.M., declared her a dependent, and ordered reunification services for mother. Later, the court terminated mother’s reunification services. In December 2020, the court held a permanency planning hearing and terminated mother’s parental rights. B. Mother completed a parental notification of Indian status (ICWA-020 form) stating “father” had possible “Blackfoot” ancestry through his paternal grandmother and great-grandmother. Mother denied Indian ancestry. The Bureau mailed an ICWA-020 form to Thomas at his last known address, but it was returned as undeliverable. At the November 2018 jurisdictional hearing, the court noted mother’s ICWA-020 form indicated Indian ancestry “on the paternal side of the family” and questioned whether the court could “make an ICWA finding.” Counsel for the Bureau responded: “I think what the mother is indicating [is] that…