In re M.A.-S. CA6

── In re M.A.-S. CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 In re M.A.-S. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re M.A.-S., a Person Coming Under the H053714 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 24JU00016) SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.S., Defendant and Appellant. Mother S.S. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights as to her child, M.A.-S. The sole issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court erred in finding the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) inapplicable. Mother contends respondent Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) failed to comply with ICWA’s inquiry requirements. We conclude the inquiry in this case was deficient and therefore conditionally reverse the order terminating Mother’s parental rights and remand the matter for the juvenile court and the Department to comply with ICWA’s inquiry requirements.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 M.A.-S. (born 2022) is the youngest of mother’s five children. Since 2011, Mother has been the subject of several referrals and dependency proceedings due to her ongoing substance abuse. Mother’s parental rights have been terminated for two of her children, and those children were adopted by family members. These family members also help care for two other children for whom parental rights have not been terminated. In late 2023, the Department received a referral of general neglect as to M.A.-S., mother’s fifth child, alleging that Mother2 left drug paraphernalia accessible to the child. After the Department contacted Mother about the referral, she placed M.A.-S. in his maternal great-aunt’s care. Hoping to avoid initiating dependency proceedings, the Department assessed M.A.-S.’s relatives for guardianship of him. The child’s maternal grandmother declined to be considered for placement due to health issues. M.A.-S.’s maternal grandfather was disqualified due to his criminal history and recent arrest. Although M.A.-S. stayed with his maternal great-aunt for some period of time, eventually, M.A.-S. returned to live with Mother. When no viable relative placement options presented themselves, the Department filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j),3 alleging that Mother and Father’s substance abuse put M.A.-S. at substantial risk of harm, Father’s whereabouts were unknown, M.A.-S.’s siblings had been abused or neglected, and there was a substantial risk that M.A.-S. would be abused or neglected. 1 “ ‘In accord with the usual rules on appeal, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to the dependency court’s order.’ [Citation.] In light of the limited scope of this appeal, we provide an abbreviated summary of the dependency proceedings.” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1046.) 2 Law enforcement also arrested M.A.-S’s father, J.A. (Father), for outstanding substance-related warrants. Because Father did not appeal the order, we omit many of the facts related to him. 3 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2  A. Dependency Proceedings At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court ordered family mainten