Filed 10/6/23 In re Hailey T. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re Hailey T. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

 B327958

 

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01554)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHASTITY B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Tara L. Newman, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

____________________________________

INTRODUCTION

This is Chastity B.’s third appeal from orders terminating 

her parental rights to her children. In her previous appeals she 

contended, among other things, the juvenile court and the 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

failed to comply with their inquiry and notice obligations under 

the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) 

and related California law. In each of those appeals, we directed 

the juvenile court to ensure the Department complied fully with 

those obligations. (See In re Gabriella H. (B315796, June 12, 

2023) [nonpub. opn.] (Gabriella H. II); In re Gabriella H.

(B313276, Aug. 12, 2022) [nonpub. opn.] (Gabriella H. I).)

Chastity again appeals from an order under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.261 terminating her parental rights 

to two of her five children, Hailey T. and Ramon T., Jr. (Ramon).

Chastity argues the juvenile court erred in finding that there was 

no reason to believe or know Hailey and Ramon were Indian 

children and that therefore the provisions of ICWA did not apply. 

We conclude the juvenile court and the Department have now 

complied with their obligations under ICWA. Therefore, we 

affirm. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
3

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Juvenile Court Sustains Petitions on Behalf of 

Hailey and Ramon

Chastity is the mother of Hailey and Ramon, as well as 

three older children who are not involved in this appeal. 

Ramon T., Sr. is the father of Hailey and Ramon; he is not 

involved in this appeal either.

In February 2021 the juvenile court sustained a petition on 

behalf of 11-month-old Hailey under section 300, subdivisions (a), 

(b), and (j). Among other allegations, the Department alleged 

that Chastity and Ramon T. had a history of violent altercations 

and that Chastity used illicit drugs while pregnant with Hailey. 

In May 2021 the juvenile court declared Hailey a dependent child 

of the court and removed her from her parents. On December 10, 

2021 the court terminated reunification services for the parents

and scheduled a permanency planning hearing under section 

366.26. 

Ramon was born in October 2021 with a positive toxicology 

screen for marijuana. On February 1, 2022 the juvenile court 

sustained a petition on his behalf under section 300, 

subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). On March 1, 2022 the court declared 

Ramon a dependent child of the court, removed him from his 

parents, and denied reunification services. 

B. Ramon T.’s Sister Indicates Hailey May Have Indian 

Ancestry, and the Department Fails To Comply with 

Its Notice and Inquiry Obligations Under ICWA

Chastity and Ramon T. filed ICWA-020 forms in connection 

with the detention hearing for Hailey stating they had no known 
4

Indian ancestry. The juvenile court at that time found it had no 

reason to know Hailey was an Indian child. 

As described in Gabriella H. I, Hailey’s paternal aunt,

Vanessa T., told a dependency investigator Hailey’s paternal 

great-grandfather “came from the Yaqui tribe, but he was not 

registered with the tribe.” Vanessa did not know the paternal 

great-grandfather’s name and did not have any additional 

information about him, but she gave the investigator the name 

(Norma T.) and phone number of the paternal great-grandfather’s 

sister. Vanessa also gave the investigator the names and birth 

dates (but not birth years) of Hailey’s paternal grandfather (who 

was deceased) and paternal grandmother, as well as the place 

where the paternal grandfather died. The investigator called and 

left a message for Norma, but she did not respond. The record 

did not indicate at that time whether the Department attempted 

to contact Hailey’s paternal grandmother.

The investigator sent ICWA-030 notices on behalf of Hailey 

to the Pascua Yaqui tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 

notices included the name and address of Hailey’s father and the 

names of Hailey’s paternal grandparents, but not their partial 

birth dates, their birth places, or the former address for Hailey’s 

paternal grandfather. On August 20, 2020 the Pascua Yaqui 

tribe notified the Department that Chastity, Hailey, and Ramon 

were not members of the tribe and did not have applications for 

membership pending. Based on the information the Department 

provided, the Pascua Yaqui tribe concluded Hailey was not 

eligible for membership in the tribe, and the juvenile court found 

at the disposition hearing there was no reason to know Hailey 

was an Indian child. 
5

Chastity and Ramon T. appealed from the disposition order 

arguing, among other things, the Department did not comply 

with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA and related 

California law. We agreed and directed the trial court to ensure 

the Department complied fully with ICWA and related California 

law, including by contacting Hailey’s paternal grandmother and 

providing complete and proper notice to the Pascua Yaqui tribe. 

(Gabriella H. I, supra, B313276.)

C. The Department Concedes It Failed To Comply with 

ICWA Regarding Ramon

Meanwhile, at the February 1, 2022 jurisdiction hearing on 

the petition regarding Ramon, the juvenile court found, based on 

a notice from the Pascua Yaqui tribe stating Ramon was not 

eligible for membership, the court had no reason to believe or 

know Ramon was an Indian child. That notice was based on the 

same deficient information the Department provided the tribe 

regarding Hailey. On appeal from an order denying a section 388 

petition, the Department conceded the juvenile court failed to 

ensure the Department conducted an adequate inquiry under 

ICWA and related California law regarding Ramon. We again 

directed the juvenile court to ensure the Department complied 

fully with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and related 

California law. (Gabriella H. II, supra, B315796.)

D. The Department Conducts Additional Inquiries and 

Submits Revised Notices to the Tribe, and the 

Juvenile Court Finds ICWA Does Not Apply

In October and December 2022 the Department reported 

that a social worker contacted Hailey and Ramon’s paternal 
6

grandmother, who denied having Indian ancestry but said the 

children’s paternal grandfather claimed to have Indian ancestry. 

She said that the paternal grandfather had died three years ago 

and that, because he was incarcerated for over 20 years after 

they separated, she did not have his last known address. A social 

worker also contacted two paternal aunts, Christina T. and 

Heather T., both of whom said they had no Indian ancestry. 

Christina and Heather also told the social worker that they had

“heard” their side of the family was “somehow affiliated” with a

tribe, but that they were not registered members. The 

Department spoke again with paternal aunt Vanessa, who again 

said Ramon’s family had Indian ancestry. And the Department 

attempted multiple times without success to contact the paternal 

great-grandfather’s sister Norma.

In December 2022 the Department sent revised ICWA-030 

notices to the Pascua Yaqui tribe. The notices provided known 

information omitted from the previous deficient notices, including 

birth dates and places for the paternal grandparents. In 

addition, in a section titled “[o]ther relative information,” the 

notices included information about Vanessa and Norma, but did 

not identify Christina and Heather. On March 1, 2023 the 

Pascua Yaqui tribe notified the Department that Hailey, 

Chastity, and Ramon were not members of the tribe and did not 

have membership applications pending. 

On March 13, 2023 the juvenile court found that there was 

no reason to believe or know Hailey or Ramon was an Indian 

child and that ICWA did not apply. The court terminated 

Chastity’s and Ramon T.’s parental rights to Hailey and Ramon. 

Chastity timely appealed. 
7

DISCUSSION

Chastity again argues the juvenile court failed to ensure 

the Department complied with its duty of inquiry under ICWA, 

but her only contention this time is that the revised ICWA 

notices did not include information about the children’s paternal 

aunts Christina and Heather in the section for “[o]ther relative 

information.” Thus, we address only whether the Department’s 

revised notices complied with its obligations under the notice 

requirements of ICWA and related California law.

“ICWA provides: ‘“In 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.”

[Citation.] This notice requirement, which is also codified in 

California law [citation], enables a tribe to determine whether 

the child is an Indian child and, if so, whether to intervene in or 

exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding.’ [Citations.] ‘ICWA 

reflects a congressional determination to protect Indian children 

and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and 

families by establishing minimum federal standards a state court 

must follow before removing an Indian child from his or her 

family.’” (In re J.C. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 70, 76-77; see 

25 U.S.C. § 1902.) 

“Federal regulations implementing ICWA provide that the 

notice must include, in addition to information about the child 

and the child’s parents, ‘“[i]f known, the names, birthdates, 
8

birthplaces, and Tribal enrollment information of other direct 

lineal ancestors of the child, such as grandparents.”’” (In re Y.W.

(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 556-557; see 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.11(a), 

23.111(d)(1)-(3); In re E.H. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1069.) 

“Section 224.3, subdivision (a)(5)(C), requires ICWA notices to 

include ‘[a]ll names known of the Indian child’s biological 

parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, or Indian 

custodians, including maiden, married, and former names or 

aliases, as well as their current and former addresses, birth 

dates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment information of 

other direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any other 

identifying information, if known.’” (Y.W., at p. 557; see In re 

T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 294 & fn. 18.) In general, ICWA 

notices “‘“must include enough information for the tribe to 

‘conduct a meaningful review of its records to determine the 

child’s eligibility for membership.’”’” (Y.W., at p. 557; In re J.S.

(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 688.)

The Department’s revised notices complied with these 

requirements by providing the information known to the 

Department concerning Hailey and Ramon’s parents and

grandparents. Neither ICWA nor California law requires an 

ICWA notice to include known information about non-direct 

lineal ancestors, such as aunts. (See 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.11(a), 

23.111(d)(1)-(3); § 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(C); In re E.H., supra, 

26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070, fn. 16 [distinguishing between “direct 

lineal ancestors” and relatives listed in the “[o]ther relative 

information” section of the ICWA notice form, such as aunts and 

uncles].)

Chastity concedes our prior opinions did not require the 

Department to provide “information pertaining to the other 
9

paternal aunts,” and she cites no case interpreting ICWA or 

related California law that way. But she argues that Christina 

and Heather, like Vanessa, “were Indian relatives whose 

information was potentially relevant to a membership or 

eligibility determination made by the Pascua Yaqui tribe” and 

that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s 

finding ICWA did not apply. The revised notices, however, 

satisfied the requirement that an ICWA notice must provide 

enough information for the tribe to conduct a meaningful review 

to determine a child’s eligibility for membership. (See In re Y.W.,

supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 557; In re J.S., supra, 62 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 688.) The revised notices included the names, birthplaces, 

and birth dates of the children’s father and paternal grandfather, 

who the paternal grandmother said claimed Indian ancestry and 

whose blood line included the paternal great-grandfather, who 

Vanessa believed “came from the [Pascua] Yaqui tribe.” That 

was enough information for the tribe to determine if the children 

were members or eligible for membership. (See In re Delila D.

(2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, 965 [“ICWA defines an Indian child as 

either 1) a member of a tribe or 2) a biological child of a member 

and eligible for membership.”]; 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); § 224.1, 

subd. (a).) 

And even if California law required the Department to 

provide the names of the children’s paternal aunts in the notices 

sent to the Pascua Yaqui tribe, Chastity has not shown that 

omission would have affected the Pascua Yaqui tribe’s 

determination Hailey and Ramon were not members of the tribe. 

Thus, any error by the juvenile court in failing to ensure the 

Department complied with such an obligation was harmless. 

(See In re Y.W., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 558 [any failure to 
10

comply with a higher state standard for ICWA notices “‘“must be 

held harmless unless the appellant can show a reasonable 

probability that he or she would have enjoyed a more favorable 

result in the absence of the error”’”]; In re E.H., supra, 

26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1072 [same]; In re S.E. (2013) 

217 Cal.App.4th 610, 615 [“[w]here notice has been received by 

the tribe, errors or omissions in the notice are reviewed under the 

harmless error standard”].)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

SEGAL, J. 

We concur: 

PERLUSS, P. J. FEUER, J.