Filed 4/3/18 In re C.B. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----




In re C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

YUBA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C085809


(Super. Ct. No. JVSQ160000035)

M.B., father of the minor C.B., appeals from the juvenile court’s September 20, 2017 order selecting adoption as the permanent plan for C.B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 395, 366.26.) Father’s sole contention is that notice pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) was insufficient. We agree and therefore, reverse the September 20, 2017 order and remand the matter for the limited purpose of permitting the juvenile court to comply with the notice provisions of the ICWA.
BACKGROUND
C.B., born in January 2016, was removed from her mother’s custody in February 2016. Father was given reunification services but those services were terminated in December 2016.
In February 2016, mother advised Yuba County Health and Human Services (Department) that she did not know if she had any Indian ancestry. That same day, father told the Department he had Cherokee and Cheyenne ancestry. Both parents were given ICWA-20 forms to complete and file with the court. Two months later, in April 2016, mother completed and filed with the court her ICWA-20 form; she claimed Cherokee ancestry. Father also completed his ICWA-20 form, claiming he too had Cherokee ancestry. Father’s form, however, was not filed with the court, so in May 2016, the Department asked father to complete another ICWA-20 form.
The Department completed the ICWA-30 form and mailed it to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, and all federally recognized Cherokee tribes. The form indicated mother and father both claimed Cherokee ancestry. The Cherokee tribes each found the minor was not eligible for enrollment.
On May 19, 2016, father’s second ICWA-20 form was filed with the court. This time, in addition to Cherokee, father claimed he had Sioux heritage. The Department then asked the court to continue the six-month status review hearing “to ensure that the Sioux Tribe is provided with notice in compliance with the [ICWA] which was previously not noticed in this proceeding.”
Notice was mailed to the recognized Sioux tribes in October 2016. In that notice, the Department indicated it was mother who claimed Sioux ancestry, not father. In a subsequent status review report the Department reported that father “completed the ICWA-20, Parental Notification of Indian Status stating he had Cherokee and Sioux Indian Ancestry.” Later in that same report, the Department wrote: “The father . . . indicated the mother’s Indian Ancestry on his ICWA-020. Therefore, on October 18, 2016, notices were sent to all the Sioux tribes as this was previously not completed, and at this time, letters have not been received.” The court later ruled the ICWA did not apply to the child.
On September 20, 2017, the court terminated father’s and mother’s parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Father does not claim the Department failed to send notice to any tribe to which it was required to send notice. Rather, he contends the notice was deficient because it incorrectly identified C.B.’s mother as the parent who may have Sioux heritage rather than father, who claimed Sioux heritage. We agree.
On appeal, the Department claims father “mistakenly indicated mother’s Indian ancestry on his ICWA-020” form. The record does not support that claim. First, father’s sworn statement indicates he has Sioux ancestry, not mother. Second, although the Department’s October 2016 report says father “indicated the mother’s Indian Ancestry on his ICWA-020,” there is no other evidence to suggest father’s sworn statement means something other than what it says: he has Sioux ancestry. And third, father listed Cherokee and Sioux on his form, mother also claimed Cherokee heritage, so even if father did indicate mother’s ancestry on his form it is more likely he was referring to her claim of Cherokee heritage.
Notice under ICWA must contain sufficient information to determine a child’s direct ancestors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a)(5); In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703.) Here, the ICWA notice sent to the Sioux tribes incorrectly identified mother as the family member claiming Sioux heritage. Because we cannot say the error in identifying mother as the family member claiming Sioux heritage did not impact the ability of each of the tribes to conduct a meaningful search of tribal records to determine whether the child is an Indian child, we will reverse and remand for proper ICWA noticing.
When the ICWA notice is defective, appellate courts employ a limited reversal. The ICWA’s “limited reversal approach is well adapted to dependency cases involving termination of parental rights in which we find the only error is defective ICWA notice. This approach allows the juvenile court to regain jurisdiction over the dependent child and determine the one remaining issue.” (In re Francisco W., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 705, italics added.) No other issues may be considered on remand, which is limited to compliance with the ICWA. “If the only error requiring reversal of the judgment terminating parental rights is defective ICWA notice and it is ultimately determined on remand that the child is not an Indian child, the matter ordinarily should end at that point, allowing the child to achieve stability and permanency in the least protracted fashion the law permits.” (Id. at p. 708.)
We conditionally reverse the order terminating parental rights to the child, and remand the case with directions to the juvenile court to ensure full compliance with the ICWA. On remand, the Department shall correctly identify father as the family member claiming Sioux heritage, then renotice the parents, tribes, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Secretary of the Interior, in compliance with the ICWA.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating the parental rights to C.B. is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. If, after such compliance, the juvenile court determines the child does not have Indian heritage, then the juvenile court shall reinstate the order terminating father’s and mother’s parental rights.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
BLEASE, J.