In re R.S. CA1/1

── In re R.S. CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 In re R.S. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE In re R.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, A174814 v. (Lake County A.S., Super. Ct. No. JV320688) Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A.S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to R.S. following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.2 Mother contends the Lake County Department of Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the record filed in the dismissed appeal no. A173755 (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a)), portions of which the parties cite in their briefing in this appeal. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related state law (§ 224 et seq.) by not questioning extended family members as to whether R.S. might be of Native American descent. The Department concedes that a conditional reversal and remand for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA is warranted here. We agree and conditionally reverse and remand the matter to the juvenile court for compliance with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements. In August 2024, after R.S. sustained serious physical injuries, the Department detained R.S. and filed a petition alleging he came within section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j) (petition). In its jurisdiction report, the Department stated ICWA may apply, as the paternal grandmother reported Native American ancestry. R.S.’s parents reported they do not have Native American ancestry. The report does not indicate whether the Department contacted other relatives about R.S.’s potential Native American ancestry, even though the notice for the jurisdiction hearing listed several living relatives, including a paternal grandfather and a paternal great-grandmother. In January 2025, R.S.’s presumed father died. Shortly thereafter, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to Mother. In its disposition report, the Department stated ICWA did not apply, noting that R.S.’s parents reported that they did not have Native American ancestry. Attached to the report was Mother’s signed Judicial Council ICWA- 020 form, indicating no Native American ancestry. The report made no mention of any efforts to ask other relatives whether R.S. had any Native American ancestry. The juvenile court bypassed reunification services to Mother, found R.S.’s current out-of-home placement was appropriate, and set a selection 2 and implementation hearing under section 366.26. In doing so, the court found ICWA did not apply. Prior to the section 366.26 hearing, the Department filed an ICWA compliance report recommending a finding that ICWA did not apply. According to the report, the Department eit