P.H., In re (2024) B321592 B321592; filed 1/12/24. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B321592.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B321592.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Formal ICWA notice only; the appeal did not challenge compliance with initial or further inquiry duties. Quoting In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 885. > Nothing in the record establishes reason to know Minor is an Indian child based on the six circumstances set forth in section 224.2, subdivision (d). At most, the statements by Father, Mother, Maria, and Gloria suggest Minor might have some Indian ancestry. But “tribal ancestry is not among the criteria for having a reason to know the child is an Indian child.” (In re Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 885; accord In re Dominic F. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558, 571 [“A suggestion of Indian ancestry is not sufficient under ICWA or related California law to trigger the notice requirement”].) — P.H., In re (2024) B321592, slip op., p. 8.