In Re Ha, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Ha, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
148 citation events (148 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re B.B. CA1/5 (calctapp, 2020-11-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re B.B. CA1/5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re J.T. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 986 , 994 [notices failed to specify any addressee]; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 509 [notices addressed to “ ‘Business Committee’ ”]; In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1213 [notice addressed to “Tribal Health Clinic”].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 8 _______________________ BURNS, J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re K.A. CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
DISPOSITION The orders and findings of the juvenile court are affirmed. 6 Father also relies on this court’s decision in In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1209-1215 (H.A.).) There, unlike the case at bar, the claim of native ancestry came directly from a grandparent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re T.P. CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(In re Justin S. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1437 [remanding because juvenile court declared that ICWA did not apply based on tribes’ failure to respond, even though 60-day period for response had not elapsed]; Dwayne P. v. Superior Court (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 247, 251-252 [agency did not provide tribes with any ICWA notice]; In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 734 [record reflected no ICWA notice or inquiry at all]; In re Kahlen W., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1421-1424 [agency failed to provide tribe with notice of its right to intervene and failed to follow alternative procedur…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Del Norte County Department of Health & Human Services v. Patricia M.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1210 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ]; In re Alicia S. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 79, 81 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 ].) Our Supreme Court recently described these standards as follows: “When applicable, ICWA imposes three types of requirements: notice, procedural rules, and enforcement. [Citation.] First, if the court knows or has reason to know that an ‘ “Indian child” ’ is involved in a 1 “child custody proceeding,” ’ as those terms are defined in the Act [citation], the social services agency must send notice to the child’s parent, Indian custodian, and tribe by…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re J.G. CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
(Kahlen W., at p. 1422.) The requisite notice enables the tribe and/or BIA, in part, to investigate and determine whether the minor is an “Indian child.” (In re Junious M. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 786, 796 .) To ensure compliance with ICWA notice requirements, this court held in In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214 (H.A.) that a department that seeks the foster care placement of or the termination of parental rights to a child who may be eligible for Indian child status must do the following or face the strong likelihood of reversal on appeal to this court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Mary G.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Further, the Agency concedes it sent notice to the Kumeyaay tribe at the wrong address "as the current address in the Federal Register was not used." Sending an ICWA notice to the wrong address is error, and the error is prejudicial when, as here, the record lacks conclusive evidence the tribe received actual notice. ( Nicole K v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal. App.4th 779, 783 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 251 ; In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 .) The Agency claims that under the rationale of In re Rebecca R. (2006) 143 Cal. App.4th 1426 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 , the parents …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kern County Department of Human Services v. S.N.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
(See In re H.A. (2003) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214-1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ].) 7 If the BIA or any tribe responds by confirming that J. is or may be eligible for membership within 60 days of sending proper notice under the ICWA to the BIA and any identified tribes (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1439(f)(6)), the court shall proceed pursuant to the terms of the ICWA and is hereby authorized to vacate, in whole or in part, any prior dispositional finding or order which is inconsistent with ICWA requirements.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re IG
Cal. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
(See In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1215, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 .) One can hardly blame this chronic problem on the state's Judicial Council or its educational arms, the Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER), and the Center for Families, Children, and the Courts, which offer regular courses (including online courses) and written materials dealing with ICWA compliance.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) San Francisco County Department of Human Services v. Bonnie C. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
(In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 178-179 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 205 ]; In re Nikki R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at pp. 855-856; In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ].) Noncompliance with ICWA has been a continuing problem in juvenile dependency proceedings conducted in this state, and, by not adhering to this legal requirement, we do a disservice to those vulnerable minors whose welfare we are statutorily mandated to protect.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fresno County Department of Children & Family Services v. Gerardo A. (6×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
In In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ], this court required a department or agency which seeks foster care placement of or parental rights termination to a child who may be eligible for Indian child status to make a documentary record of its compliance with ICWA notice requirements ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 ) or face the strong likelihood of appellate reversal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Ray M.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(In re Karla C., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at pp. 175-176, 178; In re HA. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214-1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ].) Not filing the tribes’ responses aids neither the courts nor the parties and does not serve the purpose of the ICWA.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Charisse A. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(In re Samuel P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1266-1267 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 820 ]; In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214-1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ]; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 507-509 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 ]; In re Karla C., supra, at p. 178.) Here, the social worker did not file any notices, copies of notices or return receipts with the juvenile court; she did file the response from the San Carlos Apache Tribe with the court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Louis S. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(Rule 1439(f)(2); In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 .) The BIA publishes a list of designated tribal agents for service of notice under the ICWA.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Karl C.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at page 1211, is numbered “SOC 319” and was promulgated by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency for the benefit of county agencies, and is intended to conform with the Guidelines’ notice requirements.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Karla C.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Second, the [social services agency] must file with the superior court copies of proof of the registered mail or certified mail and the return receipt(s), the completed [notice] that was served, and any responses received." ( Id. at pp. 1214-1215, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 , some capitalization omitted.) The form notice to which the court referred in In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at page 1211, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 , is numbered "SOC 319" and was promulgated by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency for the benefit of county agencies, and is intended to conform with the Guidelines' notic…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Eric D. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
In re Kahlen W., supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at page 1424 ; In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731 , 739 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 267 ], See, e.g., In re H.A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shasta County Department of Social Services v. Gregory N.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214-1215 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ]; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498 , 507—508, [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 ]; In re Jennifer A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 692 , 702—703, [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 54 ].) However, while this practice would head off numerous appellate complaints of non-compliance with the ICWA, the second step of this procedure is not required by the ICWA or by mle 1439.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. Tiffany H.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1414; In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1214; In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 477 .) It is not “acceptable for juvenile courts to completely ignore indications that a child may be of Indian ancestry.” (In re Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420 (dis. opn. of Moore, J.).) Accordingly, we deny the motion to take additional evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Nikki R.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., In re Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal. App.4th at p. 1414, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 ; In re H.A., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1214, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ; In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 477 , 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 688 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Antoinette S. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
A, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 .) In this case, as the father points out in his opening brief, there was no evidence before the juvenile court that SSA had provided the required information.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orange County Social Services Agency v. R.S. (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1211 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ]; In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414 , 1422 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 507 ] (Kahlen W.).) The prescribed notice must pertain to the pending proceedings and the right of intervention.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re R.K. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
The ICWA inquiry was deficient “The ICWA, enacted by Congress in 1978, is intended to ‘protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.’ [Citation.] ‘The ICWA presumes it is in the best interests of the child to retain tribal ties and cultural heritage and in the interest of the tribe to preserve its future generations, a most important 33 resource.’ [Citation.]” (In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166 , 173–174.) Thus, the juvenile court and DCFS “have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re S.K. CA2/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Stacy K. v. Superior Court (Mar. 29, 2013, B246299) [nonpub. opn.].) 3 and cultural heritage and in the interest of the tribe to preserve its future generations, a most important resource.’ [Citation.] “‘The ICWA confers on tribes the right to intervene at any point in state court dependency proceedings. [Citations.] “Of course, the tribe’s right to assert jurisdiction over the proceeding or to intervene in it is meaningless if the tribe has no notice that the action is pending.” [Citation.] “Notice ensures the tribe will be afforded the opportunity to assert its rights under th…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jackson W. (3×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
(In re C.D. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 214 , 222 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 ]; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 506 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 ]; 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a).) “ ‘[T]o satisfy the notice provisions of the [ICWA] and to provide a proper record for the juvenile court and appellate courts, [the Department] should follow a two-step procedure’ of sending proper notice to all possible tribal affiliations and filing with the court copies of the notices, the return receipts and any correspondence from the tribes.” (In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420 , 1425, fn. 3 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 ], q…
examined Cited "see, e.g." In Re Elizabeth W. (4×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
When the dependency court has reason to believe a child is an Indian child within the meaning of the Act, notice on a prescribed form must be given to the proper tribe or to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the notice must be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. ( In re C.D. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 214, 222 , 1 Cal. Rptr.3d 578 ; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 506 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 733 ; 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a).) "`[T]o satisfy the notice provisions of the [ICWA] and to provide a proper record for the juvenile court and appellate courts, [the Department] should follow a …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re CD (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
NOTES [*] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976, subdivision (b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II through IV. [1] 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. [2] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 , 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 . [3] The children's mother was a party to these dependency proceedings until she passed away in or about November 2001. [4] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. [5] Penal Code section 273d, subdivision (a). [6] In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.Ap…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re LB (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Therefore, we deny respondent's motion. [2] Further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. [3] This court has suggested that, "[t]o satisfy the notice provisions of the [ICWA] and to provide a proper record for the juvenile court and appellate courts, [a social services agency] should follow a two-step procedure" of sending proper notice to all possible tribal affiliations and filing with the court copies of the notices, the return receipts and any correspondence from the tribes. ( In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739-740, fn. 4 , 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 267 ; se…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re H.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Kern County Department of Human Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Roberta A., Defendant and Appellant.
F040764.
California Court of Appeal.
Nov 26, 2002.
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12
Vartabedian.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*14] Kathleen M. Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Tom Clow, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[*13] OPINION

VARTABEDIAN, Acting P.J.

Roberta A. appeals from orders terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)[1] to her daughters, H. and F. Earlier in the proceedings, there was evidence the girls might be Chumash Indian and eligible for membership in a federally-recognized Indian tribe, known as the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation (the Santa Ynez Band). Appellant contends the court erred in terminating her rights absent proof of proper notice to the tribe, within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).

On review, we agree and will reverse. We publish our decision to call attention to the imperative of complying with the letter of the ICWA. In addition, we expect social service entities to make a better record of their compliance with the ICWA.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Three-year-old H. and one-year-old F. have been dependent children of the Kern County Superior Court since July 2001. The circumstances underlying their dependency status, out-of-home placement and need for permanent planning are not crucial to this appeal. What is relevant are the following representations contained in the social worker's assessment for the section 366.26 hearing.

"On September 4, 2001, the children's maternal grandmother, Maria R., stated that she is of American Indian heritage, specifically, Chumash Indian through the San [sic] Ynez Tribe in San Ynez, California. On February 6, 2002, requests for confirmation of the children's Indian status was [sic] sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Sacramento, California, for the children, [H.] and [F.]. On February 6, 2002, a hearing notice was sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by certified mail notifying them of the hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 scheduled for May 29, 2002. On February 8, 2002, request for confirmation[*15] of the children's Indian status and a hearing notice for the hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 scheduled for May 29, 2002, was sent by certified mail to the San [sic] Ynez Tribal Health Clinic in San [sic] Ynez, California. Further, on March 21, 2002, an [ICWA] referral for the children, [F.] and [H.], was sent to the San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission Indians in San [sic] Ynez, California. On February 15, 2002, George Armenta, Enrollment Committee Chairman, San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission of [sic] Indians, sent a response to the Kern County Department of Human Services stating [H.] and [F.] have no affiliation with the San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission Indians. After reviewing all roles [sic] and descendency lists, the San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission Indians cannot identify the children as enrollment members, or in a line of lineage to the San [sic] Ynez Chumash Tribe. Enrollment committee notes were attached to this stating that Roberta A. is Chumash, but her enrollment number is unknown, as is that of the maternal grandmother, Maria R."

The social worker did not attach to his report any copies of the notices given, proofs of the certified mail, the returned receipts, or the response sent by Armenta. In addition, no one, not the court, respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (the Department), counsel for the minors, nor counsel for appellant made any reference to these representations at the section 366.26 hearing. Instead, that hearing addressed the mother's modification petition (§ 388) to seek more time for reunification efforts and her claim the children should have a continued relationship with her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

Background

The ICWA establishes minimum federal standards, both procedural and substantive, governing the removal of Indian children from their families. (In re Alicia S. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 79, 81, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 121.) An "Indian child" for purposes of the ICWA means "any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe." (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4).) The ICWA seeks to protect the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 469, 99 Cal. Rptr.2d 688.)

To ensure a tribe's rights, the ICWA requires:

"[i]n any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention." (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); emphasis added.)

One of the primary purposes of giving notice to the tribe is to enable it to determine whether the child involved in the proceedings is an Indian child. (In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 186, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 819.) Thus, the Indian status of the child need not be certain to invoke the notice requirement. (In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1422, 285 Cal.Rptr. 507.) If the identity or location of the tribe cannot be determined, the notice shall be given to the Secretary of the Interior. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)

Lack Of Notice

We agree with appellant that the Department failed to establish it gave notice[*16] "by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention" (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)) to the Santa Ynez Band. As a preliminary matter, we reject any claim of waiver given that appellant's challenge is timely (see In re Pedro N., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 191, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 819) and the superior court has a sua sponte duty to assure compliance with the notice requirements of the ICWA (In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 471-72, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688).

First and foremost, the forms sent by the Department, that is a "request for confirmation of the children's Indian status and a hearing notice for the [section 366.26] hearing," did not suffice for notice purposes under 25 United States Code section 1912(a). Compliance requires no more than the completion of a preprinted form promulgated by the State of California, Health and Welfare Agency, for the benefit of county welfare agencies (In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 475, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688) and the attachment of a copy of the dependency petition. The form entitled "NOTICE OF INVOLUNTARY CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEING INVOLVING AN INDIAN CHILD" and numbered "SOC 319" seeks to conform with the Department of the Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed.Reg. 67584, 67588 (Nov. 26, 1979) (Guidelines). Although the Guidelines do not have a binding effect on this court, the construction of a statute by the executive department charged with its administration is entitled to great weight. (In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 474, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688.)

Guidelines, B.5 states in relevant part:

"The notice shall be written in clear and understandable language and include the following information:
"(i) The name of the Indian child;
"(ii) His or her tribal affiliation;
"(iii) A copy of the petition, complaint or other document by which the proceeding was initiated;
"(iv) The name of the petitioner and the name and address of the petitioner's attorney;
"(v) A statement of the right of the biological parents or Indian custodians and the Indian child's tribe to intervene in the proceeding;
"(vi) A statement that if the parents or Indian custodians are unable to afford counsel, counsel will be appointed to represent them;
"(vii) A statement of the right of the natural parents or Indian custodians and the Indian child's tribe to have, on request, twenty days (or such additional time as may be permitted under state law) to prepare for the proceedings;
"(vii) The location, mailing address and telephone number of the court;
"(ix) A statement of the right of the parents or Indian custodians or the Indian child's tribe to petition the court to transfer the proceeding to the Indian child's tribal court;
"(x) The potential legal consequences of an adjudication on future custodial rights of the parents or Indian custodians; and
"(xi) A statement in the notice to the tribe that since child custody proceedings are usually conducted on a confidential basis, tribal officials should keep confidential the information in the notice concerning the particular proceeding and not reveal it to anyone who does not need the information in order to exercise the tribe's right under the Act."

The request for confirmation of the children's Indian status which the Department[*17] submitted is another form promulgated by the State of California, Health and Welfare Agency. However, it serves a purpose other than notice. The request for confirmation includes blanks for detailing the dependent child's family history as an aid to a tribe in determining whether the particular dependent child qualifies for Indian child status. The notice of hearing is helpful but again it is not enough for notice under the federal law.

Second, the Department's reliance on certified mail was misplaced. By California Rules of Court, rule 1439(f)(1), the Department could resort to certified mail as an alternative to registered mail. Nevertheless, the Department did not request a return receipt as required under the ICWA (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)) to show that service of notice was completed. The Department and the court must be mindful in this regard that the case cannot proceed to hearing until at least 10 court days after receipt of the notice by the tribe. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); Fed. Rules Civ. Proa, rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C.)

Third, even if the Department had completed the appropriate notice form, it should have sent the notice to the tribe's chairperson or its designated agent for service of process. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1439(f)(2).) For some undisclosed reason, the Department sent its forms to "San [sic] Ynez Tribal Health Clinic." Clearly, it did not send the forms to the tribe's chairperson and there is also no indication in the record that the health clinic was the tribe's designated agent.

For future reference, we note that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) periodically publishes a current list of designated tribal agents for service of notice, along with the appropriate mailing addresses, in the Federal Register. Notable to this case, the BIA published a list in December 2001, just a few months before the Department attempted to give notice. (66 Fed.Reg. 65725.) In particular, the BIA's list disclosed that the Santa Ynez Band designated "Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians, ICWA Coordinator" as its agent for service of process. (66 Fed.Reg. 65725, 65738.) Thus, the Department should have served notice to the "Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians, ICWA Coordinator," and not a health clinic.

We also reject the Department's implicit claim that any error with regard to notice was harmless because it served notice on the BIA. The Department's notice to the BIA suffered from many of the same infirmities as its notice to the Santa Ynez Band and thus did not comply with the ICWA (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)). We express no opinion as to whether notice to the BIA "by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of [a tribe's] right to intervention" could cure error when, as in this case, the tribe's identity and location could be determined.

Unless a tribe has participated in or expressly indicated no interest in the proceedings, the failure to comply with ICWA notice requirements (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)) constitutes prejudicial error. (In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 472, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688.) This rule leads us to consider one last issue. The Department assumes the response it received from the enrollment committee chairman establishes the tribe had no interest in these proceedings. We disagree.

At the outset, we note the Department's reference to a response sent by "George Armenta, Enrollment Committee Chairman, San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission of [sic] Indians" raises questions about Armenta's authority to speak on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band. He may very well have such authority but there is no showing in[*18] the record that he did. In addition, there is the Department's summary of his response, that is:

"[H.] and [F.] have no affiliation with the San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission Indians. After reviewing all roles [sic] and descendency lists, the San [sic] Ynez Band of Mission Indians cannot identify the children as enrollment members, or in a line of lineage to the San [sic] Ynez Chumash Tribe. Enrollment committee notes were attached to this stating that Roberta A. is Chumash, but her enrollment number is unknown, as is that of the maternal grandmother, Maria R."

We do not know what to make of, or how the juvenile court could make anything of, this summary because it is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, the first statement of "no affiliation" is some evidence that the Tribe has no interest in these proceedings. However, the remaining remarks suggest only that the children are not enrolled members.

While enrollment can be one means of establishing membership, it is not the only means, nor is it determinative. (United States v. Broncheau (9th Cir.1979) 597 F.2d 1260, 1263.) Enrollment is not required in order to be considered a member of a tribe; many tribes do not have written rules. (In re Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 471, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 688, citing Guidelines, 44 Fed.Reg. 67584, 67586.)

In addition, although the Department claimed the tribe could not identify the children in a line of lineage, in the next sentence the Department noted both the children's mother and grandmother were Chumash. The Department's summary simply makes no sense. Even the Department on appeal concedes a lack of clarity. We frankly do not understand why the Department did not attach a copy of the actual response to its report and instead relied on a social worker's summary.

All of the foregoing leads us to one conclusion as well as the reason we publish our decision. Over the years, this court has published repeatedly to emphasize the importance of ICWA notice compliance. Indeed, with one exception, every opinion cited herein comes from this court. Nevertheless, we still encounter deficient records such as the one in this appeal. Therefore, in yet another effort to ensure compliance with the notice requirements of the ICWA, we will set forth our expectation. We hold that a party, such as the Department here, who seeks the foster care placement of or termination of parental rights to a child who may be eligible for Indian child status, must do the following or face the strong likelihood of reversal on appeal to this court.

First, the Department must complete and serve, pursuant to the terms of 25 United States Code section 1912(a), the "NOTICE OF INVOLUNTARY CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDING INVOLVING AN INDIAN CHILD" along with a copy of the dependency petition. Second, the Department must file with the superior court copies of proof of the registered mail or certified mail and the return receipt(s), the completed "NOTICE OF INVOLUNTARY CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDING INVOLVING AN INDIAN CHILD" that was served, and any responses received.

DISPOSITION

The orders terminating parental rights are reversed. On remand, the juvenile court is directed to conduct a limited remand restricted to insure whether, one, the Santa Ynez Band received proper notice under the ICWA, and, two, the tribe has determined that the children are eligible for membership in the tribe. Provided[*19] proof of proper notice as detailed herein and a determination by the Santa Ynez Band that the children are ineligible for membership in the tribe, the court shall then reinstate its orders terminating parental rights. Alternatively, the court should proceed according to the dictates of the ICWA.

WE CONCUR: BUCKLEY and GOMES, JJ.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.