In re E.M. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

In November 2019, the parents denied any Indian ancestry and completed ICWA-020 forms indicating no knowledge of Indian ancestry. In February 2020, Father indicated possible Indian heritage. The social worker, however, was unable to obtain any further information from Father. Although the social worker had the names of the paternal grandparents and three paternal aunts, the record does not indicate that the Agency attempted to contact these individuals to inquire about possible Indian ancestry. The Agency also had direct communication with three of E.M.’s adult step-sisters but failed to inquire about Indian ancestry. The Agency also failed to ask E.M. about any possible Indian ancestry. The parties agree, and we concur, that the Agency did not comply with its initial duty of inquiry in this case by failing to inquire of the child and available extended family members regarding any potential Indian ancestry.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 (§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(1).) We also note that before the juvenile court can find that the ICWA does not apply, it must make a finding that…