Filed 10/8/21 In re J.D. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.D., A Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B310568

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP04645A)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.

Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

Mother R.P. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and 

terminating her parental rights, as to her now two-year-old son, 

J.D. Mother’s only contention on appeal is that the juvenile court 

failed to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.), because the record does not 

contain the return receipts for notices sent to the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and Secretary of the Interior. Finding there was 

no reason to know J.D. is an Indian child, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother has an extensive child welfare history, with 

dependency cases for five of J.D.’s older siblings in 2014 and 

2016, arising from mother’s substance abuse, inappropriate 

discipline of the children, and domestic violence in the home. 

Mother failed to reunify with J.D.’s siblings, and her parental 

rights to one sibling were terminated. 

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department) received a general neglect referral 

leading to this case after mother tested positive for drugs while 

pregnant with J.D. He was removed in July 2019, when he was 

nearly five months old, and placed with maternal aunt and uncle, 

who had adopted one of his older siblings. 

When mother was interviewed by the Department in April 

2019, she denied any Indian heritage. In July 2019, she filed a 

parental notification of Indian status form (ICWA-020) indicating 

that she has no Indian ancestry. At the July 24, 2019 detention 

hearing, the juvenile court found there was no reason to know 

that J.D. was an Indian child, and that ICWA does not apply. 
3

On August 29, 2019, J.D.’s father filed a parental 

notification of Indian status form indicating that he has no 

Indian ancestry. 

On August 20, 2019, mother told the Department “she was 

not sure[,] but she heard that someone [on] her father’s side 

might have [Indian ancestry].” Mother said that maternal 

grandmother could have more information. Maternal 

grandmother initially told the Department her husband 

(maternal grandfather) may have some Indian ancestry, but she 

did not know which tribe, and there was no one with any 

additional information, as paternal grandfather, and his entire 

family, were deceased. Later, maternal grandmother denied any 

Indian ancestry in the family; however, she told the Department 

she heard that her brother-in-law’s mother had married an 

Indian man. In the prior dependency cases, ICWA was found not 

to apply. 

In August 2019, the Department sent notices of the 

proceedings by certified mail to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

Secretary of the Interior. The return receipts are not included in

the record. The Department’s reports consistently reported that 

ICWA does not apply. 

On October 24, 2019, the court sustained jurisdictional 

findings based on the history of domestic violence between 

mother and father, substance abuse by mother and father, and 

abuse and neglect of J.D.’s siblings. The court bypassed 

reunification services for mother and father. 

On February 4, 2020, mother filed a Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 388 petition, asking for J.D. to be 

returned to her care, or that she receive reunification services. 

The court set the petition for hearing. The Department opposed 
4

the requested change in orders, and recommended that mother’s 

petition be denied, and that her parental rights be terminated. 

On January 22, 2021, the court terminated mother’s and 

father’s parental rights, and denied mother’s Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 388 petition. Mother filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Congress enacted ICWA “ ‘to protect the best interests of 

Indian children and to promote the stability and security of 

Indian tribes and families.’ ” (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 

8.) ICWA requires notice to Indian tribes “in any involuntary 

proceeding in state court to place a child in foster care or to 

terminate parental rights ‘where the court knows or has reason 

to know that an Indian child is involved.’ ” (In re Isaiah W., at 

p. 8.) The child’s tribe must receive “notice of the pending 

proceedings and its right to intervene.” (In re H.B. (2008) 

161 Cal.App.4th 115, 120.)

Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2 imposes on the 

juvenile court and the Department “an affirmative and 

continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be an 

Indian child . . . .” (Id., subd. (a).) If there is “reason to believe 

[that an Indian child is] involved in a proceeding,” further inquiry 

regarding the possible Indian status of the child “shall” be made, 

including “[i]nterviewing . . . extended family members” to obtain 

the necessary information to notice the tribes. (Id., subd. (e)(1) & 

(2); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).) 

If there is reason to know a child might be an Indian child, 

the Department must provide notice to the Indian tribes. (In re

Jennifer A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 692, 705.) “[T]here is ‘reason 

to know’ a child is an Indian child if ‘(1) Any participant in the 
5

proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian 

Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that the 

child is an Indian child; [¶] (2) Any participant in the 

proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian 

Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it 

has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian 

child; [¶] (3) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives 

the court reason to know he or she is an Indian child; [¶]

(4) The court is informed that the domicile or residence of the 

child, the child’s parent, or the child’s Indian custodian is on a 

reservation or in an Alaska Native village; [¶] (5) The court is 

informed that the child is or has been a ward of a Tribal court; or 

[¶] (6) The court is informed that either parent or the child 

possesses an identification card indicating membership in an 

Indian Tribe.’ (25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c) (2019).)” (In re A.M. (2020) 

47 Cal.App.5th 303, 315-316.) 

The Department must file with the juvenile court the

ICWA notices, return receipts, and any responses to the notices.

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.3, subd. (c).) “ ‘The juvenile 

court must determine whether proper notice was given under 

ICWA and whether ICWA applies to the proceedings. [Citation.]’ 

[Citation.] When . . . the facts are undisputed, we review 

independently whether the requirements of ICWA have been 

satisfied. [Citation.] However, we review the juvenile court’s 

ICWA findings under the substantial evidence test . . . .” (In re

A.M., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 314.) 

Here, the information available to the Department and

juvenile court did not trigger the notice requirements under

ICWA. Mother’s and maternal grandmother’s statements to the

effect that someone in the family might have Indian ancestry in
6

an unknown tribe, but there was no living family member with

any additional information to provide, and that J.D.’s great

uncle-in-law’s mother had married an Indian man, are too vague

to give any reason to know J.D. is an Indian child. Accordingly,

there was no error in finding that ICWA does not apply. 

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. 

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, J.

OHTA, J.*

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

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

Constitution.