Filed 1/9/24 In re A.J. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.J. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B329814

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21CCJP01901B-E)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Linda Sun, Judge. Affirmed.

Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

Mother appeals from the April 4, 2023 order terminating 

parental rights to four of her children under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.26.

1 Mother’s sole contention on 

appeal is that the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure 

compliance with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child 

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

California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns four of mother’s children: twins born 

in 2009, a son born in 2010, and a daughter born in 2011.

2 We 

limit our discussion to the facts relevant to the sufficiency of the 

ICWA inquiry efforts taken by the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (the Department). 

Mother first denied that the children had any Indian 

ancestry in an April 2021 interview. At an April 29, 2021 

detention hearing, the court noted mother had filed an ICWA-020 

form also denying any Indian ancestry. Father also denied any 

Indian ancestry. 

According to a June 2021 Department report, mother told 

the Department she was living with one of her brothers, and she 

was close with two other siblings in California. Mother’s parents 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. 

2 Other parties to the dependency case, including the 

children’s father, their half-siblings, or the half-siblings’ fathers, 

are not parties to the current appeal.
3

were deceased. Mother again denied any Indian ancestry. Based 

on a prior dependency case involving mother when she was a 

minor, the Department had the first names of eleven of mother’s 

siblings. In September 2022, maternal aunt M.Y. denied any 

Indian ancestry.

In October 2022, a paternal aunt who was the children’s 

caregiver also denied that father’s or mother’s family had any 

Indian ancestry, explaining that mother’s family was of Mexican 

descent.

On October 26, 2022, the court ordered the Department to 

“follow up on the ICWA inquiry,” including identifying “all 

paternal and maternal relatives and follow up with the inquiry.” 

In November 2022, the Department interviewed mother, father, 

and paternal aunt, all of whom again denied any Indian ancestry

or possibility that any of the children were eligible to be an 

Indian child. In December 2022, mother again denied that any 

family member is a member of a federally recognized tribe or 

otherwise connected to a federal tribe. The Department reported,

“There are no other paternal or maternal family members that 

the mother has provided CSW with their information.” Paternal 

aunt also said she did not have names or phone numbers for 

other family members.3 In February 2023, a social worker 

reiterated that mother had previously mentioned having a good 

relationship with her siblings, but failed to provide their contact 

information. In March 2023, the Department inquired about 

possible Indian ancestry with paternal grandmother, a different 

3 We grant the Department’s Motion for Judicial Notice, 

and take notice of the attached reports and orders. (Evid. Code, 

§ 452, subd. (d).)
4

paternal aunt, and several paternal cousins, all of whom denied 

any Indian ancestry or connection to a federal Indian tribe.

At the section 366.26 hearing on April 4, 2023, the court 

made a no ICWA determination, finding that the Department 

had made diligent efforts to interview father, paternal 

grandmother, paternal aunts, and mother, all of whom indicated 

no Indian heritage; the court also ordered parental rights for all 

four children terminated.

DISCUSSION

ICWA inquiry 

“Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 in response to ‘rising 

concern in the mid-1970’s over the consequences to Indian 

children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of abusive child 

welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers 

of Indian children from their families and tribes through 

adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.’ ” 

(In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7.) Both ICWA and California 

law define an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who is either a member 

of an Indian tribe or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe 

and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. 

(25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); § 224.1, subds. (a) & (b); see In re 

Elizabeth M. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 768, 783.)

California statutory law incorporates the requirements of 

ICWA, and imposes some additional requirements as well. (In re 

Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 91; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 

70 Cal.App.5th 735, 741–742.) State law imposes on the 

Department a first-step inquiry duty to “interview, among others, 
5

extended family members and others who had an interest in the 

child.” (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; see § 224.2, 

subd. (b).) Federal regulations explain that the term “[e]xtended 

family member is defined by the law or custom of the Indian 

child’s Tribe or, in the absence of such law or custom, is a person 

who has reached age 18 and who is the Indian child’s 

grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or 

sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or 

stepparent.” (25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2017).) The duty of initial inquiry 

includes making a meaningful effort to interview available 

relatives. (In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 552–553.)

When there is “reason to believe that an Indian child is involved 

in a proceeding,” further inquiry is also required. (§ 224.2, 

subd. (e); In re T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 290, fn. 14.) “We 

review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s Indian ancestry 

for substantial evidence.” (In re H.V., at p. 438.) 

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding ICWA 

inapplicable without evidence that the Department had made a 

meaningful effort to locate and interview maternal extended 

relatives about possible Indian ancestry.

4 We disagree.

4 Mother’s opening brief anticipates that the Department 

would argue no duty of initial inquiry under ICWA applied 

because the children were detained pursuant to a protective 

custody warrant. (See In re C.L. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 377, 385, 

describing split of authority between the holdings of In re Robert 

F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 492, review granted July 26, 2023, 

S279743, and In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, 970–976, 

review granted Sept. 27, 2023, S281447.) However, the 

Department does not make the anticipated argument. 

Accordingly, we proceed with the understanding that section 
6

Mother and father both denied any Indian ancestry, as did 

the various paternal and maternal relatives interviewed by the 

Department. In addition, maternal aunt M.Y. denied any Indian 

ancestry when she was contacted on September 26, 2022. Other 

than maternal aunt M.Y, there is no evidence in the record that 

the Department was in contact with any maternal relatives, or 

that any person suggested that any of mother’s siblings or other 

relatives had any information about possible Indian ancestry. 

The Department had the names of mother’s siblings, but no 

contact information. Mother and other relatives did not provide 

any contact information for mother’s siblings when asked. 

Further investigation to locate these or additional extended 

relatives was not required. (In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 

191, 199 [child protective agency is not required to conduct an 

extensive independent investigation or to “cast about” for 

investigative leads]; see also In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 

711, 721 [where “representatives from both sides of two 

generational levels” of minor’s family denied Indian ancestry, but 

not every extended relative was contacted, ICWA determination 

supported by substantial evidence].)

224.2, subdivision (b), required the Department to inquire of 

available extended family members whether the minors were or 

may be, Indian children.
7

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s April 4, 2023 order terminating 

parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

366.26 is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

I concur:

KIM, J.
In re A.J. et al.

B329814

BAKER, Acting P. J., Concurring

While I do not join the opinion for the court’s 

characterization of state law related to the Indian Child Welfare 

Act, I agree substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that adequate inquiry was made into whether the 

minors in question are Indian children.

BAKER, Acting P. J.