In re R.A. CA5

── In re R.A. CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 In re R.A. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re R.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KERN COUNTY DEPTARTMENT OF F090903 HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD142617-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD142700-00 and JD142701-00) v. OPINION J.H., Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales Norris, Judge. Gregory M. Chappel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kendra L. Graham, County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.  Appellant J.H. (mother) is the mother of R.A., G.P., and J.P. (collectively “the children”), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s order issued at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing that resulted in her parental rights being terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court and the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) failed to comply with their duty of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et. seq.) The department concedes that it failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the potential Indian ancestry of the children, and it does not oppose remand for the limited purpose of conducting further ICWA inquiry.2 We agree with the parties and conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and remand for proceedings to ensure ICWA compliance. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 In October 2021, R.A. was taken into protective custody due to ongoing domestic violence between mother and R.A.’s father, Raymond A. The department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging R.A. was described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The allegations involved mother’s ongoing substance abuse and domestic violence relationship with Raymond. Mother and Raymond denied having any Indian ancestry during the department’s initial investigation. At the initial detention hearing for R.A., held on October 26, 2021, mother was present and Raymond was not. Mother filed a “Parental Notification of Indian Status” form (ICWA-020), which indicated she may have Chumash ancestry through her 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1.) 3 The sole issue on appeal concerns ICWA; therefore, we primarily restrict our facts to those bearing on that issue. 2. grandmother. The juvenile court inquired of mother regarding her potential Chumash ancestry, and she identified her grandmother, Linda M., as the only living family member with information on th