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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re S.M. et al., Persons

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 Superior Court 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 County Counsel, Jane E. Kwon, Deputy 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 2014) and younger child B.M. 

(born in 2015).

1 Father seeks a reversal and remand for

compliance 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. BACKGROUND3

On May 7, 2020, the Department filed a section 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 statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

3 Because the sole issue on appeal concerns compliance by 

the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) with ICWA and 

related California law, we limit our recitation of facts to those 

relevant to that compliance issue, except as is necessary for 

context.
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 custody without a care plan.

In ICWA-010(A) forms 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 reported that the children did not have 

Indian tribal ancestry because the family immigrated from 

Guatemala. Father was incarcerated and was not in contact with 

the children.

On May 12, 2020, mother filed an ICWA-020 form, denying

any Indian ancestry.

At the May 12, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile court 

found 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 July 28, 2020, hearing, father appeared before the 

juvenile court and was deemed the presumed father of the 

children. Father submitted an ICWA-020 form indicating that he 

did not have Indian ancestry.

In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed July 24, 2020, 

mother reported that she and her brother (maternal uncle) were 

raised by maternal grandmother. Maternal grandfather 

separated from maternal grandmother when mother was oneyear old and mother did not recall ever having met him. 

Maternal grandmother had no contact information for maternal 

grandfather. Father reported that he and his four brothers were 

raised by paternal grandmother and paternal stepgrandfather. 

Paternal grandfather died when father was young.
4

At the August 11, 2020, adjudication hearing, the juvenile 

court sustained the amended dependency petition. The court 

stated: “Also ICWA, the court has no reason to believe that this 

is a case governed by [ICWA].”

At the December 9, 2020, disposition hearing, the juvenile 

court removed the children from parental custody and ordered 

family reunification services with monitored visits for the 

parents. The juvenile court stated: “ICWA findings were 

previously made. This is not a case governed by [ICWA].”

On August 9, 2021, the children were placed with maternal 

grandmother.

On August 24, 2021, the juvenile court terminated mother’s 

reunification services 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 with the Department, had 

not been questioned regarding 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 interviews.

The Department subsequently reported that: on 

May 19, 2022, maternal uncle denied having any Indian ancestry;

on May 24, 2022, paternal grandmother denied Indian ancestry;

and, on May 25, 2022, maternal grandmother again denied 

Indian ancestry.

At a June 10, 2022, hearing, the Department made a

supplemental record before the juvenile court, indicating that 
5

maternal uncle, paternal grandmother, and maternal 

grandmother denied Indian ancestry.

On August 11, 2022, the juvenile court ordered adoption as 

the permanent plan for 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 

grandfather since 1994. On August 23, 2022, father again denied 

any Indian ancestry.

On September 15, 2022, the juvenile court terminated the 

parents’ parental rights over the children. Maternal 

grandmother was designated as the prospective adoptive parent. 

Father appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Father argues on appeal that the Department did not 

comply with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2, 

subdivision (b). As we discuss further below, we disagree.

“‘“Section 224.2, subdivision (b) specifies that once a child is 

placed into the temporary custody 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 child, and the party 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 substantial 

evidence. [Citation.]” (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 

437–438.)
6

First, we consider father’s contention that the Department 

committed reversible error by not interviewing or attempting to 

interview maternal grandfather. The Department was not 

required to interview maternal 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 

reasonably have been expected 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 

investigative leads”].)

Next, we address and reject father’s contention that the 

Department was required to interview “paternal grandfather” 

regarding the children and Indian ancestry. The record reflects 

that paternal grandfather was deceased. And, to the extent 

father meant to refer to paternal stepgrandfather, 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 inquiry of maternal uncle and paternal 

grandmother was “cursory” and lacked the necessary “‘detail[].’” 

Father fails, however, to explain how the details provided by the 

Department were insufficient. As reported by the Department, 

both maternal uncle and paternal grandmother denied any 

Indian tribal ancestry, and such reporting is sufficient to meet 

the Department’s duty of inquiry. (See § 224.2, subd. (b) 

[Department has “duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian 

child. Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, 
7

parents, . . . extended family members, . . . whether the child is, 

or may be, an Indian child . . .”].)4

Finally, father contends that the juvenile court failed to 

make ICWA findings on June 10, 2022, and September 15, 2022. 

This argument is meritless. The juvenile court expressly found 

at the adjudication hearing that there was no reason to believe 

that ICWA applied and there is no requirement that ICWA 

findings be made at every proceeding.

4 Father’s citation to In re Gabriel G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 

1160, 1167–1168 is inapposite. There, the court concluded that 

where father reported being a member of a Cherokee tribe in an 

ICWA-020 form but the Department’s report stated that father 

stated he did not have Indian heritage, the Department had a 

duty of further inquiry. (Ibid.)
8

IV. DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

MOOR, J.