Filed 6/7/23 In re D.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B321748

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Los Angeles County 

Super. Ct. No. DK15837A

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.S.

Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant De.A.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Senior 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

____________________________

A mother, K.S., and a father, De.A., appeal termination of 

their parental rights as to their son, D.A. The parents’ lone 

contention on appeal is that the court erred in finding the Indian 

Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 224 et seq., the Act) does not apply because the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services failed to 

interview three specified extended family members. We affirm.

These proceedings began in 2016 when D.A. was three and 

a half years old. D.A. was then staying at his maternal 

grandmother’s house, where the mother came and went. The 

father was not part of these living arrangements—he lived 

elsewhere with the paternal great-grandmother and a female 

cousin. The father’s cousin is D.A.’s cousin once removed. We 

refer to her as “paternal cousin once removed.”

D.A. was placed in foster care, and later returned to the 

maternal grandmother’s home, where he had been living when 

the case began. The court ordered legal guardianship by the 

maternal grandmother as D.A.’s permanent plan. The maternal 

grandmother, then D.A.’s legal guardian, filed to adopt D.A. The 

court terminated the parents’ rights, and ordered adoption as 

D.A.’s permanent plan. The mother and the father appealed.

The father identifies three relatives he contends were 

available to the Department but as to whom no inquiry was 

conducted under the Act. (The father initially said the 

Department made no inquiry of the maternal grandmother. In 

his reply brief, he concedes the Department made this inquiry.)

The mother concurs with the father’s inquiry argument.

The first two relatives at issue are the paternal greatgrandmother and the paternal cousin once removed, with whom 
3

the father lived in May 2016. The parties agree the first two are 

not extended family members under the statute. Specifically, the 

father says the Act’s “plain terms” do not include these relatives 

and asking them “is not mandated.” Given this agreement, this 

issue is not in contention. We need not and do not tackle the 

question of whether the Legislature intended these relatives to 

fall within the definition of “extended family members.”

There is insufficient evidence either the paternal greatgrandmother or the cousin once removed has an interest in the 

child. Neither has been involved in D.A.’s life. As a separate and 

independent ground, the father acknowledges he did not raise the 

issue of these relatives’ interest in the child in his opening brief,

and he indeed forfeited this argument.

The third relative is a maternal aunt. The Department 

interviewed the maternal grandmother on the issue of Indian 

ancestry. We presume the maternal grandmother had as much 

knowledge of family heritage as the maternal aunt. Any error in 

the Department’s failure to interview this aunt was harmless.

DISPOSITION

The court’s orders terminating the mother’s and the 

father’s parental rights are affirmed.

WILEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

GRIMES, Acting P. J. VIRAMONTES, J.