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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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.

 B314282

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02557A)

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 on June 2, 2021, mother and 

father filed parental notification of Indian status forms (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 jurisdictional and dispositional 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 father’s request that we take 

judicial notice of another 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 section 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 family 
3

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, 1160–1162.)

Father claims the Department and juvenile court made an

inadequate inquiry because maternal uncle was 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 Indian ancestry, and make any further inquiry that is

required.

DISPOSITION

The jurisdictional and dispositional 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.