OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Appellant Heather M. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, D.L. (the child). Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA) did not apply because the notice sent to the applicable tribes omitted information on the maternal great-grandparents and the maternal aunt. Mother requests this court to reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand the case for proper ICWA notice to be given. We agree with mother’s ICWA claim. Therefore, we will conditionally vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to order compliance with the ICWA notice provisions.
Counsel for the child filed a letter brief on December 11, 2007, adopting the position of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) and requesting this court to affirm the order. However, at oral argument, the child’s counsel agreed with mother and requested this court to remand the matter for compliance with the ICWA notice provisions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At the outset, we note that the circumstances leading to the dependency and the pleadings and procedures relating to the dependency proceedings have no bearing on the issue on appeal of ICWA compliance. Therefore, we will only give a brief rendition of the facts regarding the actual dependency.
The department initially filed a Welfare and Institutions Code petition regarding the child on October 12, 2005. The child was six months old at the time. The petition alleged that the child came within section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petition included the allegations that mother and the child’s father (father) did not live with the child and failed to provide her with food, clothing, shelter, support, or protection; mother allowed the child to be in the care of the maternal grandmother, despite knowledge of the grandmother’s history of substance abuse and history with the department; mother abused controlled substances and engaged in domestic violence with her boyfriend in the child’s presence; and mother had an extensive criminal history. The petition was subsequently amended.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
The social worker spoke with mother on October 8, 2005, and mother denied having any Native American heritage on the maternal or paternal sides of the family.
At the detention hearing on October 13, 2005, the court asked mother if she had any tribe in her history. Mother replied, “Not to my knowledge.” However, mother’s mother (the child’s maternal grandmother) stated, “I have paperwork at home.” The court replied, “So you are looking to the maternal grandmother, and the maternal grandmother says there’s paperwork at home.” The maternal grandmother then said, “the tribe is not recognized yet through all the states, just Montana.” The court stated that ICWA would not apply if the tribe was not recognized, but asked the maternal grandmother to bring the paperwork to court for the next hearing; she agreed to do so. The juvenile court detained the child in foster care.
On October 26, 2005, the department sent the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) an ICWA notice form, which included mother’s name, address, and birthdate. The BIA returned the form and indicated that the family had not provided enough information substantiating any federally recognized tribe. The BIA also indicated that “the family must provide a history back to the year 1900 with names, birth dates and/or birthplaces of ancestors . . . .”
At a contested jurisdictional hearing on January 18, 2006, the court found true the allegations in the amended petition and declared the child a dependent of the court. The court then ordered mother and father to participate in reunification services. The court found that the child could have Indian ancestry on father’s side and ordered the department to gather information from father and notify the appropriate tribes. As to mother, counsel for the department stated that the department still did not have a tribe name, and informed the court that the department received the letter from the BIA indicating that the family had not provided enough information.
The social worker filed a six-month status review report, in which she recommended that the court find ICWA did not apply and that reunification services be terminated. The social worker reported that mother indicated she may have Cherokee ancestry. On May 5, 2006, the social worker sent ICWA notices to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (collectively, the tribes), the BIA, and the Indian Child Family Services. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians both replied that the child was not a registered member and was not eligible to be a member of their tribe. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians had not responded by the time of the report. The social worker further reported that mother failed to complete her case plan and apparently tried to deceive the department regarding her participation in it.
At a hearing on July 12, 2006, the court found that notice had been given, as required by law, to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and that ICWA did not apply as to those tribes. The department subsequently received a letter from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, who also determined that the child was not eligible for enrollment in its tribe. At a hearing on August 9, 2006, the court accordingly found that ICWA did not apply as to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.
At a section 366.26 hearing on June 7, 2007, the court terminated parental rights.
ANALYSIS
The Department Failed to Give Sufficient ICWA Notice
Mother’s sole claim on appeal is that the court committed reversible error in finding that ICWA did not apply to the child, since there were three maternal relatives missing from the ICWA notice—the maternal great-grandmother, Willie N., the maternal great-grandfather (mother did not allege his name), and the maternal aunt, Dawn M. The department concedes that the notices did not contain information on these individuals, but contends that such information was unnecessary for the tribes to determine whether the child was a member or eligible for membership. We agree that the notices did not need to name the maternal aunt. (See In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 630 (Louis S.).) However, they should have included the maternal grandparents.
“One of the purposes of giving notice to the tribe is to enable it to determine whether the minor is an Indian child. [Citation.]” (Louis S., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at p. 630.) The notice must include information such as the child’s name, date of birth, and place of birth, the names and addresses of the child’s parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, along with dates of birth or death and/or other identifying information. A copy of the dependency petition must also be provided. (Ibid.) It is the department’s responsibility to obtain as much information as possible about the child’s potential Indian background and to provide that information to the relevant tribe or, if the name of the tribe is not known, to the BIA. (Ibid.) Substantial compliance with the ICWA notice provisions is sufficient. (In re Christopher I. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 533, 566.) When the notice sent is inadequate, the orders of the court terminating parental rights should be vacated and the matter should be remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order compliance with the ICWA notice provisions. (In re Jonathan D. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 105, 111.) “If, after proper inquiry and notice, no response is received from a tribe indicating the minor is an Indian child, all previous findings and orders shall be reinstated. If a tribe determines that the minor is an Indian child, or if other information is presented to the juvenile court that suggests the minor is an Indian child as defined by [ICWA], the juvenile court is ordered to conduct a new section 366.26 hearing in conformity with all provisions of [ICWA].” (Id. at pp. 111-112.)
We note that information regarding a child’s aunt is not required.
Here, the department provided some, but not all known information in its notices to the tribes. The notices included the child’s name, date of birth, and birthplace; the names, birthdates, and birthplaces of the child’s parents; the names and birthdates of the maternal grandparents, as well as the maternal grandmother’s birthplace and the maternal grandfather’s address; the name of the paternal grandmother; and the names of the paternal great-grandparents. However, it did not include the names of the maternal great-grandmother, Willie N. or the maternal great-grandfather. Thus, we find that the information provided in the notices was not adequate.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to order compliance with the ICWA notice provisions. Specifically, the ICWA notices should include the names of the maternal great-grandparents. If, after proper inquiry and notice, no response is received from a tribe indicating the child is an Indian child, all previous findings and orders shall be reinstated. If a tribe determines that the child is an Indian child, the juvenile court is ordered to conduct a new section 366.26 hearing in conformity with all provisions of ICWA.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P.J., MILLER, J.
Comments