Filed 1/27/21 In re Z.A. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Z.A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B306872

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP06150)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the supplemental jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Conditionally affirmed 

with directions. 
2

Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel and 

Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

____________________

K.A. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s 

supplemental jurisdictional and dispositional orders regarding 

her son, Z.A. Mother contends the juvenile court and respondent 

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(DCFS) failed to investigate adequately Z.A.’s father’s claim of 

possible Indian heritage, as required under the Indian Child 

Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) and its 

corresponding provisions under California law (see Welf. & Inst. 

Code,1 § 224 et seq.). DCFS concedes further investigation is 

warranted. Accordingly, we conditionally affirm the juvenile 

court’s orders and remand for the purpose of ICWA compliance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We limit our summary to the information relevant to 

resolution of the single issue in this appeal.

On September 25, 2018, DCFS filed a section 300 petition 

seeking to detain 10-year-old Z.A. based on allegations of 

mother’s physical abuse of Z.A., mother’s mental and emotional 

problems, and mother’s history of substance abuse and current 

abuse of marijuana. 

1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

On November 5, 2018, Z.A.’s father, Robert E. (father), who 

lived in Georgia, informed DCFS that he believed he had Apache 

and Cherokee heritage. That same day, DCFS sent ICWA notices 

to three Cherokee and eight Apache tribes as well as the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The ICWA notice sent to the Cherokee tribes indicated 

father had Cherokee heritage through his father (paternal 

grandfather). The notice listed paternal grandfather’s name, 

stated that his date and place of birth were unknown, and that 

father had not had contact with him since father was a baby and 

had no further information. 

The ICWA notice sent to the Apache tribes indicated that 

father had Apache heritage through his mother (paternal 

grandmother) and his grandmother (paternal greatgrandmother). The notice listed the names, dates of birth, and 

places of birth of both paternal grandmother and paternal greatgrandmother, as well as paternal grandmother’s former and 

current addresses. 

On November 26, 2018, father filed an ICWA-020 form, 

parental notification of Indian status, indicating he “may have 

Indian ancestry,” with “Cherokee” written in as the name of the 

tribe. At a hearing that same day, at which father was not 

present, the juvenile court noted that father “claimed possible 

Cherokee ancestry,” and ordered DCFS “to conduct a full 

I.C.W.A. investigation.” The court directed DCFS to “interview” 

father “and send notices to the Cherokee tribes and provide the 

notices when the pretrial conference is going to be heard.” 

On January 28, 2019, DCFS submitted to the juvenile court 

return receipts indicating the ICWA notices had been received by 
4

the three Cherokee tribes, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

On May 30, 2019, DCFS submitted to the juvenile court 

responses from the three Cherokee tribes indicating that Z.A. 

was not an Indian child in relation to those tribes. DCFS 

requested that the juvenile court “find that this is not an ICWA 

case.” 

Father was not present at the adjudication hearing on 

June 27, 2019. After the juvenile court ruled on the section 300 

petition and sustained three of the counts, father’s counsel 

objected that the ICWA notices were not sufficient. Counsel for 

DCFS noted that the three Cherokee tribes had responded to the 

notices and indicated that Z.A. was not a member or eligible for 

membership in the tribes. The juvenile court stated, “Yes. I do 

see that. So that’s over [father’s counsel’s] objection.” The 

minute order from the hearing did not mention ICWA. Z.A. was 

placed with mother. 

DCFS’s subsequent status review report, filed 

December 11, 2019, stated, “The Indian Child Welfare Act 

does not apply.” 

The juvenile court held a hearing on December 19, 2019. 

The minute order issued following the hearing stated, “Father’s 

counsel to obtain information regarding ICWA from his client and 

provide it to Court . . . .”. The record on appeal does not contain a 

reporter’s transcript of the hearing.

On December 26, 2019, DCFS filed subsequent and 

supplemental dependency petitions under sections 342 and 387 

seeking to detain Z.A. from mother, based on mother’s failure to 

comply with her court-ordered case plan. The detention report 

stated that ICWA “does not apply.” The jurisdiction and 
5

disposition report stated that DCFS had “previously completed 

ICWA notices due to father claiming Cherokee heritage,” and 

that DCFS on May 30, 2019 had submitted the responses from 

the Cherokee tribes to the juvenile court. The report stated, 

“[DCFS] has not received any information to support that anyone 

in this family has Indian heritage,” and “respectfully 

recommends that the Court find that ICWA does not apply.” 

(Bold & underscoring omitted.) 

On June 24, 2020, the juvenile court sustained the 

section 387 supplemental petition and dismissed the section 342 

petition as duplicative. ICWA was not addressed at the hearing 

or in the minute orders.

Mother timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends DCFS’s inquiry into father’s Indian 

heritage, as required by ICWA, was inadequate. Specifically, she 

contends DCFS should have interviewed paternal grandmother, 

whom father identified as the source of his Apache heritage, and 

who may have had further information about paternal 

grandfather, whom father identified as the source of his Cherokee 

heritage. 

DCFS, in lieu of a respondent’s brief, filed a letter 

conceding “that initial and further inquiry into the biological 

father’s claim of possible Apache and/or Cherokee Indian heritage 

is warranted.” 

The juvenile court and DCFS “have an affirmative and 

continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition 

under Section 300 . . . has been filed, is or may be an Indian 

child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) “Inquiry includes, but is not limited 

to, asking the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, 
6

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 . . . .” (Id., subd. (b).) If, 

through this initial inquiry or otherwise, there is “reason to 

believe that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding,” further 

inquiry is required, including interviews of parents and extended 

family members. (Id., subd. (e).)2

In the instant case, the record does not show that DCFS 

satisfied its duty of initial inquiry, because there is no indication 

that it contacted or attempted to contact paternal grandmother, 

even though father provided her name and address and stated 

that she was the source of his Apache heritage. As mother notes, 

paternal grandmother may also have information about paternal 

grandfather.

Although the three Cherokee tribes to which DCFS 

provided notices concluded that Z.A. was not an Indian child in 

relation to those tribes, the information in those notices was 

sparse, and it is conceivable paternal grandmother or paternal 

grandfather can provide additional information that will be of use 

to the tribes in determining Z.A.’s status. 

Also, the record does not indicate that DCFS received any 

response from the Apache tribes, or on what basis, if any, DCFS 

2 The legislature amended section 224.2, subdivision (e) 

last year, effective September 18, 2020, which post-dates the 

rulings in this case. (Stats. 2020, ch. 104, § 15.) The 

amendments, inter alia, provide guidance as to under what 

circumstances there is “reason to believe” a child is an Indian 

child, thus triggering the duty of further inquiry. (§ 224.2, 

subd. (e)(1).) Because DCFS concedes that the initial ICWA 

inquiry in the instant case was lacking, we need not address 

whether DCFS also had a duty of further inquiry.
7

concluded there was no reason to believe Z.A. was an Apache 

child. We recognize that father, weeks after stating he had 

Apache and Cherokee ancestry, filed an ICWA-020 form listing 

only Cherokee ancestry. The record does not indicate whether 

DCFS or the juvenile court followed up with father about this 

inconsistency, so it is unclear if father’s omission of Apache 

ancestry from the ICWA-020 form was intentional. 

Courts have held that failure to comply with ICWA

requirements is not jurisdictional error, and does not require the 

reversal of juvenile court orders apart from orders terminating 

parental rights. (In re Brooke C. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 377, 

385.) Instead, the proper remedy is to conditionally affirm the 

supplemental jurisdictional and dispositional orders and remand 

for the limited purpose of ICWA compliance. (See In re Kadence 

P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1388.) We follow that course 

here.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s supplemental jurisdictional and 

dispositional orders are conditionally affirmed, and the matter 

remanded for the limited purpose of compliance with ICWA and 

related California law. The juvenile court shall direct DCFS 

(1) to conduct a more thorough inquiry of Z.A.’s possible Indian 

ancestry, and to provide the juvenile court with documentation of 

the steps taken in that inquiry; (2) if appropriate, to provide 

proper notice to any relevant tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

and the Secretary of the Interior as required by ICWA; and (3) to 

submit those notices and any responses thereto to the juvenile 

court. The juvenile court thereafter shall make findings 

concerning the adequacy of DCFS’s compliance 

with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements and the 
8

applicability of ICWA to this case. If the juvenile court concludes 

that Z.A. is an Indian child, it shall conduct further proceedings 

in accordance with ICWA and related California law. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

FEDERMAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.