Filed 5/25/22 In re King A. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re KING A.,

a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B315030

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 18LJJP00322)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEXUS S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Susan Ser, Judge. Affirmed.

Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

Alexus S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 366.26.1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that 

the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its duty under state law 

implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 

U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) to inquire of unspecified extended family 

members whether her child, King, may be an Indian child. (See 

§ 224.2.) We agree with DCFS that any such failure was not 

prejudicial and, on that basis, affirm the court’s order.

BACKGROUND2

A.A. (Father) is not a party to this appeal.

DCFS received two referrals in April 2018 relating to King, 

who was three years old at the time: the first arose out of an

instance of domestic violence involving Mother and her thenboyfriend, and the second referral was made by Father, who 

alleged that Mother used drugs in King’s presence and neglected 

1 All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to 

the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Because the sole issue on appeal is compliance with the 

state statute implementing ICWA, a detailed recitation of the 

non-ICWA related background is not necessary to the resolution 

of this appeal.
3

him. After Mother was arrested for vandalizing maternal 

grandmother’s home, DCFS sought a removal order.

DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition under 

section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that Mother has a history of 

violent and assaultive behaviors and a history of substance 

abuse. In the ICWA-010 form dated May 21, 2018, which was

appended to the petition, the social worker reported that King

had no known Indian ancestry based on in-person discussions 

with Father on May 1, 2018, and with Mother on May 15, 2018,

in which both parents denied any Indian ancestry. At this point, 

Mother was still living with maternal grandmother. In a 

statement of cause in support of King’s removal from Mother, a 

social worker also reported that Father “denied ICWA by signing 

the DCFS 5649.” Father and Mother subsequently filed ICWA020 forms, and both stated, “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I 

know.”

On May 23, 2018, the juvenile court held the detention 

hearing. Mother and Father were present. The court noted that 

both parents had reported no known Indian ancestry and found 

that ICWA was not implicated in the case. The court found a 

prima facie case for detaining King from Mother and released 

him to Father. The court’s minute order informed Mother and 

Father that they were “to keep the Department, their [a]ttorney 

and the [c]ourt aware of any new information relating to possible 

ICWA status.”

On July 24, 2018, DCFS filed another juvenile dependency 

petition, alleging domestic violence between Mother and Father 

and that Father allowed Mother to have unlimited access to King

in violation of juvenile court orders. Maternal step-grandmother 
4

was identified as a potential caretaker for King,

3 and he was 

ultimately placed with her. DCFS also filed a detention report on 

that day which noted: “On 5/23/18, the [c]ourt stated ‘the [c]ourt 

does not have a reason to know that this is an Indian child, as 

defined under ICWA.’ ”

A jurisdiction/disposition report filed on September 12, 

2018 contained a similar statement regarding ICWA. The report

also reflected that DCFS had interviewed maternal stepgrandmother, maternal grandfather, and paternal grandmother. 

There is no indication in the report that any of these individuals 

was asked about the possible Indian ancestry of King. The report 

also indicates that a social worker was attempting to get in 

contact with a paternal aunt and paternal uncle.

In March 2019, King was re-placed from maternal stepgrandmother’s home to maternal grandmother’s home.

At a hearing on July 17, 2019, the court terminated 

reunification services for Mother due to her nonexistent progress. 

A last minute information for the court filed on the day of the 

hearing stated that Mother had resided with maternal 

grandfather in January 2019.

Status and interim reports filed in September 2018, May 

2019, July 2019, and December 2019 all stated that the juvenile 

court had concluded that ICWA did not apply. However, a 

detention report filed August 14, 2020 stated that “[t]he Indian 

3 Because maternal grandfather did not initially pass the 

criminal clearance, he and maternal step-grandmother made “a 

‘sacrifice’ by living separately” to allow King to be placed with 

maternal step-grandmother. The maternal grandfather 

“submitted for the proper clearance” and was ultimately 

approved as a caregiver.
5

Child Welfare Act does or may apply. The maternal grandmother 

denied knowing if child [King] had Indian ancestry. Parents did 

not make themselves available to meet with [the children’s social 

worker] in person and complete the DCFS form 5649.”4 This 

report was filed following allegations of general neglect against 

maternal grandmother in connection with the death of King’s 

infant brother who was also in maternal grandmother’s care. 

The report identified maternal aunt as a relative to consider for 

placement.

The subsequent status report filed on August 19, 2020 once 

again stated that the court had found that ICWA did not apply in 

May 2018, as did a jurisdiction/detention report filed 

September 21, 2020. The jurisdiction/detention report identified 

several extended family members as possible placements for 

King, including maternal aunt, maternal grandfather, and 

maternal step-grandmother. The report indicates that a social 

worker spoke with each of these individuals but does not reflect 

that the social worker asked them about the Indian ancestry of 

the child.

On September 28, 2020, maternal grandmother filed a form 

request to change court order seeking King’s return to her home 

following his removal. In the portion of the form regarding 

information about Mother and Father, maternal grandmother left 

the line reading “Indian tribe (if applicable and known)” blank.

At the 18-month review hearing on October 7, 2020, the 

juvenile court also terminated Father’s reunification services. 

4 This claim is contradicted elsewhere in the record. For 

example, as noted above, a social worker had reported that 

Father “denied ICWA by signing the DCFS 5649.”
6

Father testified at this hearing that he was living with paternal 

grandmother.

The “366.26 WIC” report filed January 26, 2021 again 

stated that “[t]he Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply” and 

referenced the juvenile court’s May 2018 order. This report also 

indicated that maternal uncle and his girlfriend and maternal 

grandfather and maternal step-grandmother had come forward 

and were being assessed by DCFS as possible placements. The 

report does not state that DCFS asked any of these individuals 

whether King may have Indian ancestry. King was ultimately 

placed with maternal grandfather and maternal stepgrandmother on February 25, 2021.

A status review report filed March 19, 2021 noted again

that the court had found that there was no reason to know that 

King was an Indian child and that no notice had been given to 

any tribe. The report also stated that a social worker had 

attempted to assess other relatives for placement, including a 

paternal aunt and paternal uncle. The paternal aunt had failed 

to provide identification when asked in November 2020 and 

January 2021. In March 2020, paternal uncle had informed a 

social worker that “he did not want any part of DCFS” and 

refused to meet with a social worker, and he also refused to 

provide his date of birth or an identification card. The report also 

stated that maternal uncle and his girlfriend were still in the 

process of being assessed.

A status report filed May 20, 2021 again stated that the 

court had found that there was no reason to know that King is an 

Indian child. The report noted that King had been placed with 

maternal grandfather and maternal step-grandmother and 

appeared to be doing very well in the home. It further stated that 
7

maternal grandfather and maternal step-grandmother had 

informed DCFS that they were committed to adopting King.

DCFS recommended that the juvenile court terminate parental 

rights to allow for adoption planning.

On August 31, 2021, the juvenile court held the 

permanency planning hearing. Mother was present by phone and 

Father did not attend. The court stated that it had “no reason to 

know that [King] is an Indian child.” It further found that 

adoption was in the best interests of King and terminated Mother 

and Father’s parental rights.

Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Under California law implementing ICWA, “the child 

welfare agency and the juvenile court have a statutory initial 

duty to inquire into whether a child is, or may be, an Indian 

child.” (In re Darian R. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 502, 507, fn. 

omitted.) This “[i]nquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking 

the child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended 

family members, others who have an interest in the child, and the 

party reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or 

may be, an Indian child and where the child, the parents, or 

Indian custodian is domiciled.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b), italics added.)

DCFS does not dispute that it failed to interview members 

of King’s extended family concerning his possible status as an 

Indian child, other than maternal grandmother. DCFS’s failure 

to do so was error. Whether we reverse depends upon whether 

this error was prejudicial. (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 

Cal.App.5th 735, 742.) In the cases decided after Benjamin M., 

we have concluded prejudice exists when DCFS fails to conduct 

an initial inquiry of extended family members if the record 
8

discloses that there was readily obtainable information that was

likely to bear meaningfully upon whether a child is an Indian 

child. (In re A.C. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1017; In re S.S.

(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 575, 582.) As we describe below, there is 

no prejudice here.

Mother does not identify any specific family member who

should have been asked about King’s Indian status or identify 

anyone in King’s family from whom further inquiry might have 

yielded information that was likely to bear meaningfully upon 

whether King is or may be an Indian child.

We consider whether DCFS’s failure to inquire was 

prejudicial with respect to the extended family members 

mentioned in the record. In addition to asking both Mother and 

Father, who denied having any Indian ancestry, the record shows

that DCFS asked maternal grandmother about Indian ancestry,

and she indicated that she was not aware of any. Further, in a 

form request to change court order filed by maternal 

grandmother, in which she sought King’s return to her home 

following his removal, there was a line stating, “Indian tribe (if 

applicable and known),” which maternal grandmother left blank.

Maternal grandfather sought clearance to have King placed 

in his home and is seeking to adopt King with maternal stepgrandmother. As this court observed in In re S.S., supra, 75 

Cal.App.5th 575, because preference is given to placing an Indian 

child with extended family both for fostering and adoption (25 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (b)), there is a strong incentive to bring to the 

court’s attention any facts suggesting that a child is an Indian 

child. Nonetheless, the maternal grandfather and maternal stepgrandmother did not so do.
9

The record indicates that maternal aunt and maternal

uncle were also considered for placement. However, as neither

maternal grandmother nor maternal grandfather disclosed

knowledge of any Indian ancestry, it is speculative to assume 

that their children would have information their parents did not.

Turning to King’s extended paternal family members, there 

is no indication in the record that DCFS asked any extended 

paternal relatives about their Indian ancestry. However, Father 

affirmatively represented on multiple occasions that he had no 

Indian ancestry. That paternal grandmother, aunt or uncle 

would have provided any different information is again 

speculative. The record suggests that paternal aunt and uncle 

may not have been forthcoming with information even if asked. 

The social worker spoke with paternal aunt twice and asked her 

to provide identification so that she could be assessed, which she 

did not provide. Paternal uncle stated that “he did not want any 

part of DCFS” and refused even to provide his date of birth or 

identification to a social worker.

Furthermore, both Mother and Father were instructed to 

provide new information relevant to ICWA to DCFS and the

juvenile court. Notwithstanding the advisement, the length of 

the proceedings, and that at times during the proceedings Mother 

lived with maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather,

respectively, and Father lived with paternal grandmother, 

neither Mother nor Father advised the court of any additional 

information about Indian ancestry.

Mother asserts that In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542 

compels reversal here. We disagree. In Y.W., the mother was 

adopted at age two, and DCFS failed to make meaningful efforts 

to locate and interview her biological family, even after her 
10

adoptive mother “blazed a new trail of ICWA information: She 

had access to knowledge about [the mother’s] biological family 

the Department could have obtained with a phone call or email.” 

(Id. at pp. 548, 553–555.) Y.W. is similar to In re A.C., supra, 75 

Cal.App.5th 1009, in which the “mother was the product of foster 

care and thus may not have known her cultural heritage,” but 

“[t]he same may not have been true of her biological relatives.” 

(A.C., at pp. 1015-1016.) In light of this, and the fact that one 

detention report indicated that the child could have Indian 

ancestry, we held that we could not “conclude from this equivocal 

record that DCFS’s failure to conduct any inquiry as to [the] 

mother and father’s extended family members was not 

prejudicial.” (Id. at p. 1016.)

Mother does not point to any facts in the record that would 

indicate that she or Father lack a relationship with their 

biological families or knowledge of their cultural heritage. 

Rather, Mother and Father easily “could have asked about 

potential Indian ancestry” while staying with family. (In re 

Darian R., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 504 [no prejudice arose 

from failure to ask extended family about Indian ancestry where 

mother lived with extended family members and both parents 

eschewed Indian ancestry].)

Although there is a detention report in the record that 

states “[t]he Indian Child Welfare Act does or may apply,” it

explained that the reason for uncertainty was because Mother 

and Father purportedly “did not make themselves available to 

meet with [the children’s social worker] in person and complete 

the DCFS form 5649.” The record elsewhere contradicts this 

statement. Two years prior to that detention report, DCFS 

completed an ICWA-010 form that reported that the child had no 
11

known Indian ancestry based on a social worker’s in-person 

discussions with Father and Mother; a social worker reported to 

the court that Father “denied ICWA by signing the DCFS 5649”; 

and Father and Mother both filed ICWA-020 forms stating “I 

have no Indian ancestry as far as I know.” We therefore find that 

this statement does not create an “equivocal record” as in In re 

A.C., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at page 1016.

“The record simply does not support mother’s unvarnished 

contention that additional interviews . . . would have 

meaningfully elucidated” King’s Indian ancestry. (In re Darian 

R., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 510.) DCFS’s failure to interview 

members of King’s extended family was therefore harmless.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

MORI, J.

*

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.