Filed 12/18/23 In re Theo T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Theo T., et al., Persons 

Coming Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R. T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B327644

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 22CCJP00270CD

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Conditionally 

affirmed and remanded. 

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Mother Ruby T. appeals the juvenile court’s minute order 

after a status review hearing finding that the Indian Child 

Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (the Act) and the 

corresponding state code sections do not apply to her son T.T. and 

daughter S.W. The Los Angeles County Department of Family 

and Child Services failed to comply with the requirements of the 

Act. We conditionally affirm the order and remand to allow the 

Department and juvenile court to comply with the Act and 

related California law. Code citations are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

The juvenile court detained the mother’s four children from 

her and their respective fathers. The mother submitted to the 

court a form stating she might have Cherokee ancestry through 

the maternal grandfather and Blackfoot ancestry through her 

maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother. She 

provided the name and possible year of birth for the maternal 

great grandmother. The juvenile court ordered the Department 

to investigate these claims of Native American ancestry.

When the social worker contacted the mother, she refused 

to provide further information about her relatives, stating the 

questions were an invasion of her privacy. The Department did 

not ask other relatives with whom it was in contact about Native 

American ancestry. 

T.T.’s father and S.W.’s father both stated they had no 

Native American ancestry.

The Department sent notices to the Blackfeet and Cherokee 

tribes. The notices identified the children, the mother, the 
3

maternal grandparents, and maternal great-grandmother. The 

notices did not list the places of birth for the fathers or either of 

the mother’s parents. The notices did not include any 

information about either of the fathers’ parents or the names of 

any other known relatives.

The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over the children 

and found the Act did not apply at the disposition hearing. The 

mother appealed the disposition ruling, arguing the Department 

and juvenile court had not complied with the Act, in appellate 

case number B319395. While that case was pending, the juvenile 

court ordered the Department to interview or attempt to 

interview all extended family members about possible Native 

American ancestry. The Department moved to dismiss the 

mother’s appeal based on this order. We granted the motion.

The Department spoke to a maternal cousin and two

maternal aunts. These relatives reported that the maternal 

great-grandmother had Blackfoot ancestry in North Carolina and 

provided her name and date of birth, as well as the name and 

date of birth of the maternal grandmother. The Department also 

spoke to S.W.’s paternal grandmother who reported the paternal 

great-great-great-grandmother had said the paternal great-greatgreat-great-grandfather was Cherokee, but she did not know his 

name or date of birth. T.T.’s paternal grandmother reported the 

family had no Native American ancestry.

The Department reported this information to the juvenile 

court in a last minute information before a February 15, 2023 

status review hearing. At the hearing, the juvenile court found, 

based on that information, that the Act did not apply. The 

juvenile court also continued the children’s removal from the 

mother and terminated the mother’s reunification services. The 
4

mother appeals the court’s order, arguing the Department and 

the juvenile court again failed to comply with the Act. 

The mother correctly argues the Department failed to 

comply with the Act because it did not include the name and date 

of birth of maternal great-grandmother in its notice to the 

Blackfeet tribe. We remand for the Department to do so.

The Act requires the Department to ask the parents and 

extended family members about possible Native American 

ancestry. (§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).) Where the initial inquiry 

leads to a reason to believe a child is an Indian child, the 

Department must make further inquiry. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) If 

the further inquiry leads to a reason to know a child is an Indian 

child, the Act requires formal notice to tribes. (§ 224.2, subd. (f).)

It triggers the Department’s duty to make a further 

inquiry when the initial inquiry results in information suggesting 

a parent or the child is a member or may be eligible for 

membership in an Indian tribe. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The 

Department then must communicate with three main 

groups: the family, government agencies, and tribes. (§ 224.2, 

subd. (e).) 

The Department must interview the parents and extended 

family members to obtain as much of the following information as 

possible: the child’s name, birthdate, and birthplace; the name of 

the tribe in which the child is a member or may be eligible for 

membership; the names, addresses, and dates and places of birth 

and death of the child’s biological parents, grandparents, and 

great-grandparents; and “tribal enrollment information of other 

direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any other identifying 

information . . . .” (§ 224.3, subd. (a)(5).) The Department must 

contact any identified tribe in which the child may be a member 
5

or eligible for membership and share information that the tribe 

says is necessary to make a membership or eligibility 

determination, as well as information on the current status of the 

child and the case. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).)

Here, the mother’s statements that she may have Cherokee 

ancestry through her maternal grandfather and Blackfoot 

ancestry through her maternal great-grandmother and 

grandmother gave the Department reason to believe the children 

may be eligible for tribal membership. Thus, the Act required the 

Department to inquire of available extended family members for 

further information. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The Department did so 

and obtained additional relevant information. However, when 

the Department made its further inquiry of the tribes, it did not 

provide all of this relevant information. Specifically, it did not 

provide the name and date of birth of a direct, lineal ancestor 

who was reportedly a member of the Blackfoot tribe. The Act 

required the Department to provide this information, and this 

omission rendered its further inquiry insufficient. 

The Department argues its duty of further inquiry was 

never triggered both because the great-great-grandmother was 

too distantly related, and the Blackfoot tribe is not federally 

registered. These arguments err. 

The Department claims information regarding the greatgreat-grandmother was too remote to trigger a duty of further 

inquiry. Without information foreclosing a claim of tribal 

membership based on such familial association, however, the 

Department’s claim is meritless. (In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 

Cal.App.4th 1376, 1386-1387 [information about great-greatgreat-grandparents suggested possible tribal membership where 

no information provided that such familial association could not 
6

lead to membership].) Information about a direct, lineal ancestor 

with tribal heritage gives the Department reason to believe the 

child may be an Indian child. 

The Blackfeet tribe is federally registered. (In re L.S.

(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198.) The Blackfoot tribe is a 

Canadian tribe and is not federally registered. (Ibid.) However, 

the two tribes are understandably frequently 

confused. (Ibid.) Where a parent or relative claims Blackfoot 

heritage, the Department should clarify whether Blackfoot or 

Blackfeet is meant. (Ibid.) The Department here admirably 

initially sent notice to the Blackfeet tribe, presumably out of an 

abundance of caution. The Department now attempts to avoid a 

finding that its further inquiry was insufficient by emphasizing 

that Blackfoot, not Blackfeet, heritage was claimed. If the 

Department chose not to confirm which was meant, it cannot use 

its failure to evade its duty of further inquiry. Here, where the 

Department did not seek to clarify and the information suggested 

the tribe meant was in the United States, we will not find the 

duty of further inquiry was not triggered. (In re S.R. (2021) 64 

Cal.App.5th 303, 315 [“information that is far less conclusive 

than what would trigger formal notice may trigger the obligation 

to conduct further inquiry”].)

The Department next argues that if its duty of further 

inquiry was triggered, it met its statutory obligations. This 

contention is incorrect.

The Department claims that, because the mother’s 

information triggered only a duty of further inquiry and not the 

duty for formal notice, any deficiencies in the notices are legally 

irrelevant. While the Department is right that the requirements 

for informal notice to the tribes are not the same as those for 
7

formal notice, it failed to meet the requirements for informal 

notice. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The Department must provide the 

tribe any information the tribe needs to determine if the child is 

eligible for membership. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The Department 

does not explain why information about the ancestor who was 

reportedly a member in the tribe would not fall into this 

category. Here, the Department omitted relevant information in 

its possession that the law required it to include. (In re E.H.

(2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1069 [information regarding greatgreat grandparents must be provided if it may be relevant in 

establishing whether the child may be an Indian child].) Thus, 

the Department’s notice was deficient. As noted, we reject the 

Department’s argument that the maternal great-grandmother’s 

information was irrelevant because relatives stated she had 

Blackfoot rather than Blackfeet ancestry.

The Department erroneously argues that any challenge to 

its failure to meet its duty of further inquiry has been forfeited 

because the mother did not object in the juvenile court. (In re 

A.G. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1400 [parents’ failure to object 

to ICWA finding does not preclude appeal because it is the tribes’ 

interest that is at stake].)

DISPOSITION

We conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order and 

remand the matter to the juvenile court with directions to comply 

with the further inquiry provisions of Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 224.2. The juvenile court shall order that, within 30 

days of the remittitur, the Department send informal notice to 

the tribes containing all relevant information in its possession. 

In the event the further inquiry leads to reason to know T.T. and 

S.W. are Indian children, the juvenile court and Department 
8

shall proceed accordingly under the Act and related California 

law. In the event the further inquiry does not lead to reason to 

know T.T. and S.W. are Indian children, the juvenile court’s order 

shall remain in effect. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

GRIMES, Acting P. J. 

VIRAMONTES, J.