1 

Filed 6/5/14 In re L.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

(Sacramento) 

----

In re L.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

C075200 

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT JD231681, JD231682) 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ANDREA B., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 Andrea B., mother of the two minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court 

terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Mother contends 

the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
2 

failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We shall affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 The minors, one-year-old L.C. and two-year-old K.C, were removed from parental 

custody in June 2011 due to petitions alleging they were at risk of harm from serious 

domestic violence in the home that had not been alleviated by voluntary services. The 

detention report stated that father claimed Cherokee heritage through his paternal 

relatives and mother claimed no Indian heritage. However, at the detention hearing both 

parents filed “Parental Notification of Indian Status” forms in which father again claimed 

Cherokee heritage and mother now claimed “Blackfoot” heritage.2 At the detention 

hearing the court confirmed that mother claimed Indian ancestry in the Blackfoot tribe 

and directed that both parents be provided with a questionnaire that would provide the 

Department with relevant noticing information. The court ordered the Department to 

give notice to all federally recognized tribes. 

 The paralegal assigned to provide the ICWA notice and report to the court on the 

results filed a declaration in July 2011. The declaration stated that the paralegal called 

father on July 1, 2011, and received limited information from father, which was 

incorporated in the notice sent to the Cherokee tribes. The paralegal had not received any 

completed questionnaire or family tree diagram. The declaration does not state that the 

paralegal made or attempted to make contact with mother or inquire about her claimed 

Blackfoot heritage. Attached to the paralegal’s declaration was a copy of the “Notice of 

Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child” that the paralegal sent to the Cherokee tribes. 

 

2 The federally recognized tribe is the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. (79 Fed.Reg. 4749 

(Jan. 29, 2014) Notices.) However, the Blackfeet Tribe is frequently confused with the 

“Blackfoot” tribe (which is a related tribe in Canada) and both terms are used, sometimes 

interchangeably. 
3 

Information about mother and her relatives was limited to mother’s name and address and 

the statement “No Indian Ancestry.” 

 The jurisdiction/disposition report stated that the ICWA notice was sent to the 

Cherokee tribes based on father’s claim of Indian heritage. The report did not contain 

any indication that anyone made any inquiry of mother about her claim of Indian 

heritage. At the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court sustained the petitions and 

ordered reunification services for the parents. 

 The court held an ICWA compliance hearing in September 2011. Both parents 

were present. At the hearing, the court asked each counsel to go over the notice form 

with each parent “to make certain that the information that was provided to the tribes is 

accurate and does not need to be amended.” Father’s counsel stated that the information 

was correct and that father had no additional information. Mother’s attorney told the 

court that “The information is correct for the mother.” The court subsequently found that 

the ICWA did not apply to the case. 

 The parents failed to reunify with the minors. In September 2013, the court 

terminated parental rights and selected a permanent plan of adoption. 

DISCUSSION 

 Mother contends the Department failed to comply with the ICWA by failing to 

send notice of the proceedings to the tribe she identified.3 

 The ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and 

security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal 

participation in, dependency actions. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912.) 

 

3 On appeal mother concedes that the appropriate federally recognized tribe is the 

Blackfeet Tribe. 
4 

The juvenile court and the Department have an affirmative duty to inquire at the outset of 

the proceedings whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian 

child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) After the initial inquiry, if there is reason to 

know an Indian child is or may be involved, the Department is required to make further 

inquiry by interviewing the minor’s parents and extended family, if known, concerning 

the child’s membership status or eligibility. (§ 224.3, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 5.481(a)(4).) Where, after inquiry, the court “knows or has reason to know that an 

Indian child is involved,” notice of the pending proceeding and the right to intervene 

must be sent to the tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) if the tribal affiliation is 

not known. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); § 224.2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).) Failure to 

comply with the inquiry and notice provisions and determine whether the ICWA applies 

is prejudicial error. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 472; In re Kahlen W. 

(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1424.) 

 Here, mother stated that she may have Blackfoot ancestry. In light of the wellknown confusion between the Blackfoot and Blackfeet tribes, rather than simply 

concluding mother had identified a tribe that is not federally recognized, as respondent 

suggests, the Department had a duty of inquiry to ascertain not only whether mother was 

confused about the name of the tribe, but also any information that might bear on the 

minors’ membership or eligibility. The record is clear that, after initial contact prior to 

the dispositional hearing, the Department made no inquiry of mother whatsoever 

regarding her claim of Indian heritage. Further, despite mother’s claim of Blackfoot 

heritage, the notice form sent to the Cherokee tribes stated mother had “No Indian 

Ancestry.” Thus the obligatory inquiry did not occur and the Department misrepresented 

mother’s claimed status. Normally, a limited reversal for further inquiry would be 

necessary. 
5 

 However, following the noticing of the Cherokee tribes, the court held an ICWA 

compliance hearing. At the hearing, the court specifically directed counsel for each 

parent to review the notice form for any errors. Mother was present with counsel at the 

hearing. Counsel represented the information in the notice form as to mother was correct. 

The reasonable inference is that mother withdrew her claim of Indian heritage and 

reasserted the position she had initially claimed prior to the dispositional hearing. 

Mother’s withdrawal of her claim of Indian heritage relieved the Department of any duty 

to inquire or give notice to any tribe or to the BIA pursuant to the ICWA. 

 Given our resolution of the issue, we need not address the several points raised by 

respondent in the reply brief. 

DISPOSITION 

 The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed. 

 BUTZ , J. 

We concur: 

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. 

 MURRAY , J.