Filed 5 / 17 / 20 In re N.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN R E N.C

.,

A Person Coming Under The Juvenile Court Law

.

_____________________________
S ANTA BARBAR A COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIA L SERVICES

,

P lai ntiff and R e spondent

,

v.

S.G.

,
Defendant and Appella nt. 2d Juv. No . B 30 9222 (Super. Ct. No

. 19JV 00451 ) ( Santa Barbara County)

S. G

. ( mother ) appe als the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her min or child N .C. w ith a2

p ermanent plan of adoption

. ( Welf

. & I nst. Code

, 1 § 366.26. )
Mother contends the court and Santa Barbara County Child
Welfare Servi c es (CWS) fai led to comply with the inquiry requiremen ts of the Indian Child W elfare Act ( ICWA ; 2 5 U.S.C.S

. § 1901 et se q.). We af firm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and R.C . ( father) 2 a re the natural parents of N.C

. bor n in January 2017. On October 30
, 201 9, CWS filed a dependency petition as to N.C. alleging failure to protect ( § 300
, subd. (b)). The petition alleged among other things that on
October 28 , N.C. had been found alone at a fast food restaurant. That same date, father t ested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and opiates. Mot her also admitted recent methamphetamine use and both parents had significant d rug

related criminal histories. In its report for the October 31 , 2019 detention hearing,
CWS stated that the father had told the social worker he m ay have “ Chumash [ ancestry ] down the line

. ” The day of the hearing

, f

ather filed an ICWA

- 030 Parental Notification of Indian
Status form stating that he “may have Indian ancestry” through the “Coastal Chumas h” tribe. Mother denied any Native
American ancestry

. T he juveni le c ourt found that ICWA may apply. N.C. was ordered detained in foster car e and the matter was set for a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing

. In its December 2019 jurisdiction and di sposition report,
CWS recommended that both parents be offe red reunification
services. The social worker also reported that she had spoken to

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Father is not a party to t his writ proceeding.3

the paternal grandmother (C.D.) about N.C.’s possible Native American ancestry. C.D. told the social worker that “her

cous ins[s] are Coastal Chumash; however, she does not [ k ] now if her [ sic ] or her siblings are registered with the tr ibe.” At the conclusion of the combined jurisd iction and disposition hearing, the court placed N.C. with C.D. and awarded both parties
reunific ation services a nd monitored visitation.
I n a June 2020 six

- month status review report, CWS
recommended that reunification services be terminated and the
matter be set for a section 366.26 hearing. CW S reported that neither parent had participated in t heir case plans or visited N.C. CWS also requested a finding that the ICWA did not apply. CWS
noted that neither parent had “ responded to [CWS’s] efforts to
contact the m by telephone or certified mail to provide ancestral
information” an d that father had said he may have Native
American ancestry through the “ Chumash Coastal Band,” which
is not a federally

- recognized tribe

. At the conclusion of the six

month review hearing, the court terminated reunification
services and set the matte r for a section 366.26 hearing.
On July 30, 2020, CWS sent ICWA notices for the section 366.26 hearing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Santa
Yne z Band of Chumash Indians, the no n

- federally recognized
Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, and the Secretary of the
Interior. T he notice identified C.D. as the paternal grandmother but misspelled her surname. On August 13, 2020, the Santa
Ynez Band of Chumash Indians sent a response stating that N.C.

was not a member of the tribe and w as not eligible for
enrollment. The notice sent to the Coastal Band of the Chumash
Nation was returned as undeliverable.
At the initial section 366.26 hea ring

, the court found that
ICWA did not apply

. At the conclusion of the contested se ction4

366.26 hearing

, the court terminated parental rights to N.C. wit h a permanent plan of adoption.
DISCUSSION In her sole claim on appeal, mother contends the juvenile court and CWS failed to comply with the inquiry requirements of
ICWA. We conclude otherwise. “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.’ [Citation.]” ( In re Isaiah . W. (2 016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7 ( Isaiah W. ).) “In California, .

. . persistent noncompliance with ICWA led the Legislature in 2006 to ‘incorporate[ ] ICWA ’ s requirements into California statutory law.’ [Citations.]” ( In re Abbigail A. (2016)

1 Cal.5th 83, 91.) 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.S. § 1903 ( 4 )

, § 224.1
, subds. (a) & (b).)
The juvenile court and child servic es agencies have an affirmative and continuing duty under ICWA and related California law to inquire whether a child who is the subject of a dependency proceeding is or may be an Indian child. ( Isai ah W.

, supra , 1 Cal. 5th at pp. 7

- 8.) The scope of the duty of inquiry is defined in regulati ons promulgated under ICWA (see 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 et seq. ), California statutes

, and rules of court. ( In re
T .G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 290

- 291.)
The child servic es agencies’ initial duty of inquiry at the beginning of a child welfare proceeding includes “asking the5

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.” (§ 224.2 , subd. (b).) The c ourt must inquire at each party’ s first appearance, whether any participant in the proceeding “knows or has reason to know that the chi ld is an
Indian child.” (§ Id.

, subd. ( c).) Part of the initial inquiry also includes requiring each party to complete the ICWA

- 020 form. ( Cal. Rules of Court, 3 rule 5.481 (a)(2)(C).) When information is provided “suggesting that either the parent of the child or the child is a member or may be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe,” there is reason to believe that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding, and further inquiry is required. (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(1); In re T.G.

, supra , 58 Cal.App. 5 th at p. 290, fn. 14.) F urther inquiry includes interviewing parents and extended family members to obtain information such as the names of the child’ s “biological parents, grandparents, and great

grandparents, .

. . as well as their current and former addresses, birth dates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment information of other direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any other identifying information, if known. ” (§ 224.3 , subd. (a)(5)(C); see also § 224.2
, subd. (e)(2)(A); rule 5.481 (a)(4)(A).) The agency engaging in further inquiry should also contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the State Department of Social Services, and any tribes the child may be affili ated with, and anyone else, that might have information regarding the child ’ s membership or eligibility in a tribe. (§ 224.2 , subds. (e)(2)(B) & (e)(2)(C); rule
5.481 (a)(4)(B) & (C).) If the court or the child services agency has

3 Subsequent rule references are to the California Rules of Court.6

reason to know that the child is an Indian child under ICWA, then the relevant tribes must be given notice of the proceedings. ( 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912 (a); § 224.3, subd. (a).) “Where, as here, the juvenile court finds ICWA does not apply to a chi ld, ‘[t ]he finding implies that . . . social workers and
the court did not know or have a reason to know the children
were Indian children and that social work er s had fulfilled thei r duty of inquiry.’ [Citations.] ‘We review a court’s ICWA findings
for sub s tantial evidence. [Citations.] “We must uphold the court’s orders and findings if any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them, and we resolve all conflicts in favor of affirmance.”’ [Citation. ] The appellant ‘“has
the burden to show that the evidence was not sufficient to support the findings and orders .’’’ [Citation.]” ( In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678

, 688 .)
We agree with CWS that a sufficient ICWA inquiry was

con ducted in this case. Father claimed Native American ancestry through the “ Coastal Chumash ” tribe. Moreover, father’s mother
C.D. verified that father ’s claimed ancestry was through th i s tribe

. As mother concedes in h er opening brief , the Coas tal
Chum ash tribe ( Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation) is not a federally

- recognized tribe. Acco rdingly

, ICWA did not appl y. (See In re K.P. ( 2009) 175 Cal. App.4th 1, 5

- 6 ; In re John V. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1216

- 1217. )
Mother contends the social worker could not reasonably
conclude tha t father and C.D. ’s reference the “ Coast al Chumash ”
tri be was intended as a reference to the Co astal Band of the
Chum ash Nation. We are not persuaded. In the ICWA matrix
included in CWS’s six

- month s tatus review report , the social worker characterized father as referring to “ the Coast al Chumash
Band.” Neithe r parent objec ted to this characterization

.7

Moreover, mother does not identify an y federally

- rec ognized tribe
with a similar name. Under the circumstanc es, the social worker reasonably concluded that father was claiming Native American

an cestry through the Coastal Band of the Chumash Natio n, such that ICWA did not apply.
In re T.G.

, supra , 58 Cal.App.5th 275, which mother cites in support of her claim, is inapposite. In that case, the mother fi led
an ICWA

- 020 form stating her belie f that she may have Cherokee ancestry on her ma ternal side and possible Native American ancestry through her paternal grandfather. ( Id

. a t p. 292.) The mother did not claim, as father and C.D. d id here, that her
Nati ve American ancestry was through a non

- federally recognized Indian tribe. Because father and C.D.’s statements did not give CWS reason to beli eve that N.C. w as an Indian chil d the court did not err finding that ICWA did not apply.
DISPOSITION
The judg ment ( order terminating parental rights ) is
affir med

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN , J.

We concur:

GILBERT

, P. J.

TANGEMAN , J.A rthur A. Garcia , Judge Superior Court County of Sa nta Barbara

______________________________

Willia m Ho ok

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant

. Michael C. Ghizzoni , County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein

, S enior Deputy County Counsel , for P lain tiff and Resp ondent

.