In re H.A. CA2/7
Paige M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating her parental rights to her son, H.A., who is now almost two years old. She argues the juvenile court made an “unclear” or “ambiguous” finding, and may have considered improper factors, in ruling the parental-benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), did not apply. She also argues the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA)) and related California law. We conclude that the juvenile court erred by failing to follow the test in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 for determining whether the parental-benefit exception applies, but that the error was harmless. We also conclude the court failed to ensure the Department complied with its duty of inquiry under ICWA and related California law.
Comments on In re H.A. CA2/7