Filed 7/7/26 In re L.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 L.S., a Person Coming Under the H053559
Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. 25JD028589)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
CHILDREN’S SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
S.S. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Father S.S. (Father) and Mother M.H. (Mother) challenge the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to their child 11-month-old L.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. Father contends respondent Santa Clara
County Department of Family and Children’s Services (the Department) failed to comply
with ICWA’s inquiry requirements. Mother joins in Father’s argument. The Department
concedes the issue. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case for the limited purpose of
ensuring compliance with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
The Department filed a section 300 petition, alleging, among other things, the
parents’ domestic violence and drug use put L.S. at substantial risk of harm. After law
enforcement took L.S into protective custody, the Department placed L.S. with a resource
family home.
While Mother and L.S.’s maternal grandmother denied Indian heritage, Father
reported that he may be a member of, or eligible for membership, in an Apache tribe in
Texas. Although L.S.’s paternal grandmother and paternal aunt denied Indian heritage,
Father said that his extended family member was an Apache chief.2
At the detention hearing, Father said his family in El Paso, Texas, told him that
deceased paternal grandfather was Apache and paternal great-grandfather was a chief.
Father offered to provide contact information for his El Paso relatives. Based on Father’s
responses, the court found there was reason to believe L.S. may be an Indian child and
ordered the Department to conduct a further inquiry.
As part of its further inquiry, the social worker contacted nine Apache tribes, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region (BIA), and the California Department of Social
Services (CDSS) with information about the family and received three responses that L.S.
was not a member or eligible for enrollment. Although the Department appeared to be in
contact with Father, it did not report whether it obtained his paternal relatives’ contact
information.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply and
ordered reunification services for the parents. Father and Mother timely appealed.
1 Because the Department concedes the issue on appeal, a detailed factual
summary has not been provided as it is not necessary for the disposition of this case.
2 The Department reported that Father said L.S.’s paternal grandfather was a chief.
However, Father later stated at the initial detention hearing that the child’s paternal great-
grandfather was a chief.
2
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Father contends the Department did not conduct an adequate inquiry
into L.S.’s Indian heritage through his paternal relatives. The Department concedes that
its ICWA inquiry was deficient and requests that the case be remanded for the limited
purpose of ensuring compliance with ICWA.3 The Department’s concession is well-
taken.
In every dependency case, the juvenile court and child welfare agency share an
affirmative and continuing duty under ICWA and corresponding California law to inquire
whether the child is or may be an Indian child. (In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112,
1131-1132 (Dezi C.).) Although, the Department conducted some investigation, it failed
to investigate Father’s claim of Indian heritage through the paternal grandfather and
great-grandfather. Nor did the Department follow up with Father about his offer to
contact paternal relatives in El Paso. When there is a reason to believe an Indian child is
involved, the Department has a duty to contact extended family members and any other
person that might have information about the child’s Indian heritage. (Id. at pp. 1132-
1133, citing Welf. and Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A)-(C).) Because Father
identified these relatives as people who knew about his Apache heritage, the Department
had a duty to investigate further. Thus, we agree with the parties that the Department’s
inquiry was inadequate and accept the Department’s concession.4
The juvenile court erred in concluding that ICWA did not apply because the
Department’s inquiry was inadequate. (See Dezi C., supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1141; see
also In re Antonio R. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 421, 431.) Remand is necessary so that the
Department may conduct an adequate inquiry of Father’s claims regarding Indian
3 We do not address any additional arguments raised in Father’s brief because the
Department conceded, and we are conditionally reversing the juvenile court’s order.
4 Because we reverse on the basis that the investigation was inadequate, we do not
consider the legal sufficiency of the Department’s contacts with the tribes, BIA, and
CDSS.
3
heritage through the paternal relatives and send updated notices with any newly
discovered information. (See Dezi C., at p. 1141.)
III. DISPOSITION
The jurisdiction and disposition order entered on August 4, 2025, is conditionally
reversed. The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with
ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements. If upon sufficient compliance, the court again
finds that ICWA does not apply, it may reinstate its prior order entered on August 4,
2025, without the need for further proceedings. If, however, the juvenile court
determines that further action is required to satisfy ICWA requirements, it shall conduct
proceedings accordingly.
4
GREENWOOD, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DANNER, J.
BROMBERG, J.
In re L.S.; Santa Clara County DFCS v. S.S.
H053559
