Filed 3/23/22 In re J.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.C., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

JESSE C.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

B314324

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01721A

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed.

 William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

____________________

A father appeals an order terminating parental rights over 

his daughter, J.C. He challenges, not the merits of the 

termination decision, but the juvenile court’s earlier 

determination the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et 

seq.) (the Act) does not apply. We affirm.

The father argues both the juvenile court and the Los 

Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

failed to discharge their initial duties of inquiry under the Act 

and related California law. Citing Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 224.2, subdivision (b), he argues the Department learned 

of extended family members on his side yet erred by not asking 

them about the child’s possible Indian heritage. The father’s 

arguments fail.

We review findings under the Act for substantial evidence. 

(In re Josiah T. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 388, 401 (Josiah T.).) 

Substantial evidence supports findings that the Act did not apply 

and that the duty of inquiry was met here. 

The father has been in the dependency system before. He 

has, in his counsel’s words, “lost previous children” in such 

proceedings. In a 2018 proceeding, the juvenile court found no 

reason to know the Act applied as to the father. 

The father does not dispute this. He recognizes the court 

already found the Act “did not apply regarding Jesse [the father] 

in one of his previous dependency cases regarding [J.C.’s] halfsibling.” This is significant. (See Josiah T., supra, 71 

Cal.App.5th at p. 401 [where the juvenile court finds the Act does 

not apply, the finding implies social workers fulfilled their duty of 

inquiry].)
3

In the current matter, both the father and the mother 

completed Parental Notification of Indian Status forms stating 

they had had no known Indian ancestry. 

At a hearing in July 2019, the juvenile court asked the 

father if he had “any American Indian ancestry.” He answered, 

“No.” 

At an earlier hearing, the court noted the mother “indicates 

she has no Indian ancestry, as far as she knows.” The mother 

and her counsel were present, and neither said otherwise. 

The record shows that, after this hearing, the mother did 

not visit the child and the Department was unable to locate her 

after a diligent search. The mother is not a party to this appeal. 

The father does not identify any maternal relatives the 

Department could have contacted to inquire further as to her 

ancestry. The Department did interview the mother once at the 

outset of the case, but she said she “did not know of any” relatives 

to consider for placement. 

No party claims there were any indicia of possible Indian 

ancestry or any uncertainty regarding the parents’ ancestry. 

This renders In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 548–549 

distinguishable. Further, in Y.W., there was no earlier finding by 

the juvenile court regarding the Act’s inapplicability, as there is 

here. 

On this record, the juvenile court and the Department 

made an adequate inquiry into J.C.’s possible Indian ancestry 

and did not need to investigate further. (In re Charles W. (2021) 

66 Cal.App.5th 483, 490–491 [adequate inquiry where court and 

county welfare agency relied on undisputed finding the Act did 

not apply to the child’s older siblings and on the parents’ 

representations they had no Indian ancestry].)
4

DISPOSITION

We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, Acting P. 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.