1 

Filed 1/16/14 In re R.R. CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

In re R.R., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES , 

 Plaintiff and Respondent; 

v. 

RICHARD R., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 E059109 

 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ113791) 

 OPINION 

 APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Tamara L. Wagner, 

Judge. Affirmed. 

 Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2 

 Richard R., father of R. R., appeals from a judgment terminating his parental 

rights after he failed to visit his child for six months and did not participate in 

reunification services. On appeal, he argues that reversal is required because the 

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to adequately 

investigate R.R.’s Indian heritage and to properly notify the Choctaw tribes, thereby 

violating the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq. (ICWA)). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

 R.R. was born in 2007, testing positive for methamphetamine at birth. A 

dependency petition was filed alleging neglect (Welf. & Inst. Code1, § 300, subd. (b)), 

and failure to provide support on the part of an alleged father.2 (§ 300, subd. (g).) 

Mother denied having any Indian ancestry. The petition was sustained and R.R. was 

adjudged a dependent. R.R. was placed in the home of her maternal grandmother and 

mother was ordered to participate in reunification services. 

At the six month status review hearing, R.R. was returned to her mother’s custody 

under Family Maintenance Services upon the recommendation of DPSS, based on 

mother’s cooperation with the case plan and her significant progress. On April 17, 2008, 

the dependency was terminated. Up to this point, R.R. was reaching all developmental 

milestones. 

 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise stated. 

2 Mother initially identified another man as the father, and his whereabouts were 

unknown. 
3 

On April 12, 2012, mother called 911, crying. When police arrived at the home, 

they found puddles of blood outside the home. When they knocked, mother answered the 

door carrying R.R., and informed the officers that she was home alone, and was going to 

sleep. The police demanded entry because of the trail of blood outside, and found 

mother’s then boyfriend on the couch with a puncture wound to his left arm.3 

Mother admitted she had thrown glasses, plates and a knife at the boyfriend, 

causing the wound. Mother appeared to be under the influence of methamphetamine, 

having relapsed approximately six months before this incident. Mother attributed her 

relapse to the stress of caring for R.R., who was diagnosed as autistic. Mother was 

arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and being under the influence of 

methamphetamine. She identified R.R.’s father as Richard R. and acknowledged a 

history of domestic violence with him, which resulted in a restraining order against him 

in 2010. A paternity judgment named Richard as father in July 2009. Father had not 

visited R.R. because of the 2010 restraining order, which denied visitation, and because 

he lived in Las Vegas. 

A new dependency petition was filed, naming father along with two other alleged 

fathers.4 R.R. was removed from her mother’s home and placed with her maternal 

grandmother. Mother again denied having any Native American heritage, but father 

 3 The police report indicated the victim was found on a bed in the bedroom. 

4 This petition was subsequently amended, but the particular allegations are 

irrelevant to this appeal. 
4 

informed the social worker that he was one-sixteenth Choctaw through his mother, whose 

great, great, great paternal grandfather had married a full blooded Choctaw woman.5 The 

social worker contacted father’s mother who could not provide the names or dates of 

birth of her Native American ancestors, although the ICWA notice includes the name of 

her father. 

Notice of the dependency proceedings was sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians. The notice contained the paternal grandmother’s names 

(maiden and married), address, birth date and place, as well as the paternal great 

grandfather’s name and an incomplete birth date. Return receipts for the Choctaw Nation 

of Oklahoma, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 

Indians were filed. On May 29, 2012, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma wrote a letter 

indicating that the child is not enrolled or eligible for enrollment. 

On June 8, 2012, the court conducted the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing. 

The court found the allegations of the petition were true and that ICWA did not apply to 

the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, but may apply (to the other named tribes). Custody 

was removed from the parents and services were ordered for mother and father. An 

 5 There is no blood quantum requirement for obtaining a Certificate of Degree of 

Indian Blood Card for the Choctaw tribes. Tribal membership may be acquired as long 

as one can establish he or she is a descendent of someone enrolled on the final Choctaw 

Dawes Commission Rolls by blood. 

(http://www.choctawnation.com/services/departments/enrollment-cdib-and-tribalmembership/ [as of December 3, 2013].) 
5 

assessment of father’s home was ordered to be conducted through the Interstate Compact 

for the Placement of Children (ICPC). 

On June 20, 2012, the social worker submitted a tribal response letter from the 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians indicating that none of the named individuals was 

enrolled in the tribe. 

In the meantime, father seemed hesitant to proceed with the ICPC evaluation and 

indicated he might be unable to participate in his case plan. For her part, R.R. was 

functioning at the level of an 18-month old due to her autism. Her condition had been 

diagnosed at the age of 22 months due to language regression. She had difficulty with 

advance motor skills, such as walking backwards or jumping in place, had problems with 

inattention and impulse control, and needed assistance to take care of individual needs, so 

she continued to wear a diaper. R.R. received services from the Center for Autism and 

Related Disorders. 

During the first status review period, mother did not participate in her plan and 

tested positive for methamphetamine on more than one occasion. In August 2012, 

mother attempted to visit while under the influence of drugs. For this reason, mother was 

informed that visits, which had taken place at the maternal grandmother’s home to this 

point, would now take place at the Child Protective Services (CPS) office. The first visit 

at CPS went well, but on August 21, 2012, the second visit was terminated early when 

mother spanked R.R. for trying to eat her feces while mother changed her diaper. Mother 

was informed that she would have to drug test prior to future visits, and no subsequent 
6 

visits occurred. On December 7, 2012, DPSS filed an application to change the prior 

court order (§ 388; Form JV-180), seeking to terminate mother’s reunification services. 

Father did not participate in his plan, either, and he did not request visits. In an 

addendum report submitted on December 14, 2012, the social worker recommended that 

services be terminated as to both parents and that a section 366.26 hearing be ordered. 

The mother was living with friends but had been in jail for two weeks prior to that. She 

was now motivated to enter a rehabilitation program and had scheduled an appointment 

with MFI Recovery. Neither parent had maintained regular contact with DPSS, nor had 

they begun any component of their case plan. The maternal grandmother, with whom 

R.R. remained placed, was interested in adopting the child. The social worker also 

requested that the court find ICWA did not apply. 

On January 29, 2013, the court conducted the contested six-month review hearing. 

At the hearing, County Counsel requested a finding that ICWA did not apply in light of 

the passage of time without a response indicating that R.R. is an Indian child. The court 

made the finding that ICWA did not apply, and terminated father’s reunification services 

because he had made no progress and because he had not had contact with R.R. for six 

months. The court granted the section 388 petition filed by the county, terminating 

mother’s reunification services for failing to participate regularly in the case plan. 

On May 29, 2013, the court conducted the section 366.26 hearing. Mother filed a 

section 388 petition on the day of the hearing, seeking reinstatement of reunification 

services. The court denied the application, and proceeded to terminate parental rights, 

freeing R.R. for adoption. Father timely appealed. 
7 

DISCUSSION

Father argues on appeal that the social worker failed to adequately investigate 

father’s Indian heritage and failed to send proper notices to the Indian tribes. We 

disagree. 

ICWA was enacted to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and 

families by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian children from their 

families and placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the 

unique values of Indian culture. (In re C.Y. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 34, 39 (In re C.Y.); 

In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 195.) In state court proceedings involving the 

foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child, the Indian 

custodian of the child and the Indian child’s tribe have the right to intervene at any point 

in the proceeding. (25 U.S.C. § 1911, subd. (c).) 

Thus, in any involuntary proceeding in a state court, where the court knows or has 

reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care 

placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must notify the parent 

or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe of the pending proceedings. (25 U.S.C. § 

1912, subd. (a).) 

A social worker has an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child 

in a section 300 proceeding is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) If a social 

worker has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the social worker is required 

to make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child. (§ 224.3, subd. 

(c).) However, neither the court nor DPSS is required to conduct a comprehensive 
8 

investigation into the minor’s Indian status. (In re C.Y, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 39; 

In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1161 (In re S.B.).) 

Father argues that the social welfare agency and dependency court have a duty to 

inquire about, and, if possible, obtain [italics in AOB] the information, citing In re Nikki 

R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 848. However, Nikki R. merely points to affirmative 

duties of both the court and the county welfare department to inquire whether a 

dependent child is or may be an Indian child. (Ibid.) None of father’s authorities, nor 

any that we have found in our own research, support such an expansive interpretation of 

the social worker’s or the court’s obligations. Our interpretation is also supported by the 

Federal Guidelines: they require only that “the state court shall make inquiries to 

determine if the child involved is a member of an Indian tribe or if a parent of the child is 

a member of an Indian tribe and the child is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” 

(Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts, 44 Fed. Reg. 67584, 67588, (Nov. 

26, 1979).) 

Decisional authority is in accord. In In re C.Y., the mother, who had been 

adopted, claimed Indian heritage, but did not know the name of the tribe, and had lost the 

document that indicated her biological parents’ lineage. Subsequently discovered 

paperwork reaffirmed that her biological father was “‘German and a little American 

Indian,’” but did not provide the names, birth dates, or birthplaces of her parents or 

grandparents, and did not name a particular tribe. (In re C.Y., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 38.) On appeal, mother argued that the social services agency failed to adequately 

investigate her Indian ancestry by failing to pursue avenues of inquiry which might have 
9 

revealed additional information about her heritage. The Court of Appeal disagreed, 

holding that while the social worker has an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire 

whether a child is or may be an Indian child, neither the court nor the social services 

agency is required to conduct a comprehensive investigation. (Id., at p. 39.) 

In In re S.B, the court observed that mother could argue that the social worker did 

not make any inquiry of the maternal grandmother to follow up after mother had 

indicated the child had no Indian heritage. (In re S.B., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 

1160-1161.) However, the court answered the rhetorical question in the negative, stating 

that “as long as the social worker did inquire of the parents, and as long as the parents 

failed to provide any information requiring followup, she had no further duty of inquiry.” 

(Id., at p. 1161.) 

Here, father provided information to the social worker that he may have Choctaw 

ancestry. The social worker contacted the paternal grandmother to make further inquiry, 

and apparently learned the name of the paternal great grandfather, along with incomplete 

information about that relative’s date of birth. The paternal grandmother had no 

additional information. The social worker provided all the information she had obtained 

from both the father and the paternal grandmother to the Choctaw tribes. Two tribes 

responded that father and R.R. were not members and not eligible for tribal membership, 

and no other responses were received for more than 60 days. 

The court made sufficient inquiry into R.R.’s possible Indian heritage. The social 

worker conducted an adequate investigation and made sufficient inquiry of father and the 

paternal grandmother. Father did not provide additional information requiring followup, 
10 

and did not indicate there were other relatives who might have provided additional 

information to include in the ICWA notice. No further investigation was required. 

Because the court and the social worker adequately discharged their duties of 

inquiry, the court’s finding that ICWA did not apply was proper. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

We concur: 

HOLLENHORST 

 J. 

KING 

 J.