Filed 4/4/23 In re S.M. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re S

. M. et al. , Person s Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B323651 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02556A

– B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the S uperior Cour t of Los Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.2 William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy
Assistant Co unty Counsel, Jane E. Kwon, D eputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

J.M. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental rights over older child S.M. (born in 201 4 ) and younger child B.M. (born in 2015)

. 1 Father seeks a reversal and remand for

com pliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). 2 We affirm.

II. B ACKGROUND 3

On May 7, 2020, the Departm e nt f iled a secti on 300 petition alleging the children were at risk of serious physical

1 The children’s half sibling is not a subject of this appeal.

2 Further stat utory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

3 Because the sole issue on appeal concerns complia n ce by the juven ile court a n d the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) with ICWA and related California law, we limit our rec itation of facts to those relevant to that compliance issue, exce pt as is necessary for

c o ntext.3

harm because of mother’s physical abuse, substance abuse,
domestic violence with half sibling’s father, and leaving the
children in maternal grandmother’s c ustody witho u t a care plan.
In ICWA

- 010 (

A ) form s filed with the dependency petition, the Department indicated that ICWA may apply because the Department could not obtain any statements from the parents. Maternal grandmother report e d that the children did not have
Indian tribal ances try because the family immigrated from
Guatemala. Father was incarcerated and was no t in contact with
the children. On May 12, 2020, mother filed an ICWA

- 020 form, denying

any Indian ancestry. At the May 12, 2 020, detention hearing, the juve nile court
f ound no reason to know that the children were Indian children and thus ICWA did not apply. The children were detained from mother’s custody.
At a J uly 28, 2020, hearing, father appeared before the juvenile court and was deemed the presumed fa ther of the
children. Father submitted an ICWA

- 020 form indicating that he
did not have I ndian ancestry. In the jurisdicti on/disposition report filed July 24 , 2020

, mother reported that she and her brothe r (maternal uncle) were raised by maternal grandmo ther. Mater nal grandfather separated from maternal grandmot h er when mother was one

year old and mother did not recall ever having met him. Maternal grandmoth er had no contact i nformation for maternal grandfather. Father reported that he and his four bro thers were

r aised by paternal grandmother and p aternal step grandfather.
Patern al grandfather died when father was young.4 At the August 11, 2020, ad judication hearing, the juvenile

court sustained the amended dependency petition. The court
stated: “

A lso ICWA, the c ourt has no reason to believe t hat this is a case governed by [ICWA].”
At th e December 9, 2020, disposition hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from parental custody and ordered family reunification services w ith monitored visits for the

pare nts. The juvenile court state d: “ICWA findings were previously made. This is not a case governed by [ICWA].”
O n August 9

, 2021, the children were placed with maternal grandmother. On August 24, 2021, the juvenile court terminated moth er’s

re unificatio n service s while continuing father’s reunification
services. On February 10, 2022, the juvenile court terminated
father’s reunification services.
On March 21, 2022, the juvenile court noted that paternal grandmother , who had been in contact w ith the Depa rtment, had not been questioned regardi n g ICWA. Accordingly, the court ordered the Department to interview paternal grandmother and

any other available paternal and maternal relatives regarding Indian tribal ancestry, and to submit a “detailed report” of interviews or attempted i nterviews. The Department subsequently reported that: o n May 19, 2022, mate rnal uncle d enied h aving any Indian ancestry ;

o n May 24, 2022, paternal grandmother denied Indian ancestry ;

a nd, on May 25, 2022, mater n al gra ndmother aga in denied Indian ancestry.
At a June 10, 2022, hearing, th e Department made a supplemental record before the juvenile court, indicating that5

maternal uncle, paternal grandmother, and maternal grandmother denied Indian anc e stry.
On August 11, 2022, the ju venile court ordered adoption as
th e permanent plan fo r the children.
In a last minute information for the court filed August 24, 2022, maternal grandmother reported that neither she nor anyone in her family had had any contact with paternal

g r andfat her s ince 199 4

. On August 23, 2022, father again denied any Indian ancestry. On September 15, 2022, the juvenile court terminated t he parents’ parental rights over the children. Maternal grandmother was designated as the pr ospective ado ptive pare nt. Father appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Father argues on appeal that the De partment did not comply with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2,
subdivisio n (b). As we discuss further below, we disagree.

“‘ “ S ection 224.2, subdivision (b) specif ies that on c e a child is placed int o the temporary cus tody of a county welfare department, such as the [Department], the duty to inquire ‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others
who have an interest in the chil d, and the par ty reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.’” [Citation. ]’ [Citation.] [¶] We review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s Indian ancestry for substa ntial
evide n ce. [Citation.]” ( In re H .V. ( 2022) 75 Cal.A pp.5th 433,

437

– 438.)6 First, we consider father’s contention that the Department
committed reversib le error by not interviewing or attempting to
int erview maternal grandfather

. The Department was not require d to interview m atern al grandfather because , as the
record reflects

, it did not have any available means of contacting
him. (See In re Q.M

. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1083 [“ Without reliable contact information, [the Department] could not

reas onably have been ex pecte d to interview extended family
members ”]; In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 323 [“ICWA does not obligate the court or [the Department] ‘to cast about’ for
inve stigative leads”] .) Next, we address and reject father’s contention that the
De p artment was requir ed to interview “pa ternal grandfather” regarding the chil dren and Indian ancestry. The record reflects
that paternal gra ndfather was deceased

. And, to the extent father meant to refer to paternal step grand father, that person is

not an “ extended family member” under ICWA. ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2).) Third, we consider father’s argument that the Department’s report of its inqui ry of mater nal uncle and paternal grandmother was “cursory” and lacked the necessary “ ‘ detail []

. ’ ”
Fathe r fa ils , ho w ever, to explain how the detai ls provided by the Department were insufficient . As reported by the Department, both maternal uncle and pat e rnal grandmother denied any Indian tribal ancestry , and such reporting is sufficient to meet the Departme nt’s duty o f inquiry. (See § 224.2, subd. ( b) [Department has “duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian child. Inquiry includes, but is not l i mited to, asking the child,7

parents, . . . extended family members, . . . whether the c hild is, or may be , an I ndian child . . . ”].) 4 Finally, f

a ther contends that the juvenile court failed to make ICWA findings on June 10, 2022

, and September 15, 2022. This argument is meritless. T he juvenile court expressly found at the adju dication hearing that the re wa s no reason to believe
that IC WA applied and there is no requirement that ICWA findings be made at every proceeding.

4 Fathe r’s citatio n to In re Gabriel G

. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1167

– 1168 is inapposite. There, the court concluded that where fat her reported being a m ember of a Cherokee tribe in an ICWA

- 020 form but the Department ’s report stated that fat h er stated he di d not have I ndian heritage, the D epartment had a duty of further inquiry. ( Ibid. )8 IV. DISPOSITION

Th e order term inating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL R E PORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR , J.