The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murray , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Rose B., mother of the minor, appeals from orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant raises no challenges to the termination orders, arguing only that a new notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is required. Respondent concedes new notice is necessary for one, but not all, of the relevant tribes.
We conclude that new notice to all relevant tribes is required. We reverse and remand for the limited purpose of full compliance with the ICWA.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Because the sole issue is compliance with the ICWA, the following facts are limited to that issue and the procedural posture of the case.
The infant minor and his siblings were removed from parental custody based on a petition filed in Contra Costa County in October 2008 by Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau. In February 2009, the court ordered reunification services for appellant.
Appellant had claimed heritage in the Cherokee and "Black Foot" (sic) tribes.*fn1 The August 2009 Family Services Bureau report for the six-month review hearing said that responses were received from the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Blackfeet Tribe, all stating the minor was not considered an Indian child. The report did not state notice was mailed to all tribes, and there was no mention of any response from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The record does not contain copies of the notices sent to the tribes, proofs of service, or return receipts.
In November 2009, the court in Contra Costa County ordered additional services, found the ICWA did not apply and transferred the case to San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County juvenile court accepted the transfer and eventually terminated services for appellant in March 2010.
A report by the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (HSA) in August 2010 recommended a permanent plan of long-term foster care for the minor. A second report noted that the Contra Costa County juvenile court had previously found the ICWA did not apply.
By February 2011, HSA reported the minor, while diagnosed with cerebral palsy, was specifically adoptable by his current caretaker and the court set a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. At the contested section 366.26 ...