Filed 3/30/22 In re A.R. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A. R ., A Person Coming

Under the Juvenile Court Law. B 314282

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.R

.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 2 1 CCJ P02 557 A )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles

County

, Pete R. Navarro

, Juvenile Court Referee

. Affirmed.

Jacob I

. Olson , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva , County Counsel, Kim Nemoy , Assistant

County Counsel, and Stephen Watson

, Deputy County Counsel, for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Father E.R. appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and

dispositional order concerning his son, A.R., arguing the Los Angeles

County Department of Children and Family Services (Department)

made an inadequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act

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

.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On May 27, 2021, A.R. was detained from mother and father

and placed with maternal uncle and his wife. The record does not

show that maternal uncle was asked whether his family had Indian

ancestry. At the detention hearing o n June 2, 2021, m other and

father filed p aren tal n otification of Indian status f orm s (ICWA

– 020)

denying that they, A.R. , or any lineal ancestor “is” or “may” be eligible

for tribal membership

. The court did not ask mother and father, who

were present at the hearing , whether there was any reason to know

A.R. was an Indian child. A Department report shows that mother

and father again denied any Indian ancestry on June 30, 2021.

At the combined jurisdiction al and disposition al hearing, the

court declared A.R. a dependent and removed him from mother and

father. While this appeal was pending, the court returned A.R. to his

parents ’ custody. (We take judicial notice of the January 19, 2022

order on our own motion, and grant fath er’s request that we take

judicial notice of an other order that A.R. remained a dependent of the

court.)

Congress enacted ICWA “ ‘to protect the best interests of Indian

children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and

families.’ ” ( In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 8.) Welfare and

Institutions Code s ection 224. 2 imposes on the juvenile court and the

Department “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a

child . . . is or may be an Indian child .

. . .” ( Id

. , subd. (a).) “ If a child

is placed into the temporary custody of a county welfare department [,

the department] has a duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian

child [, including] asking the child, parents,

. . . extended family3

members, [and ] others” whether the child is or may be an Indian

child. ( Id ., subd. (b).) Moreover, “ [a] t the first appearance in court of

each party, the court shall ask each participant present in the hearing

whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is

an Indian child .” ( Id ., subd. ( c ).) Further inquiry is required if there

is a reason to believe a child may be an Indian child. ( Id ., subd. (e).)

The adequacy of the ICWA inquiry is reviewed for sufficiency of the

evidence

, and the harmless error rule applies on appeal

. ( In re S.B.

(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1160

– 116 2 .)

Father claims the Department and juvenile court made an

inadequate inquiry because maternal uncle w as not asked about any

possible Indian ancestry, and the court never asked the parents if

there was a reason to believe A.R. was an Indian child, relying instead

on the parents’ ICWA forms. Any alleged error was necessarily

harmless. Mother and father denied Indian ancestry. There is no

reason to believe that if the court had posed the question differently

than it was phrased on the ICWA form, or if inquiry had been made of

maternal uncle, there would have been reason to know A.R. has

Indian heritage

. A.R. has been returned to the custody of his parents.

Nevertheless, to ensure the finality of these proceedings, the juvenile

court should direct the Department to ask maternal uncle about any

possible I ndian ancestry

, and make any further inquiry that is

required

.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdiction al and disposition al order is affirmed

.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON , J

. HARUTUNIAN , J. *

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.