Filed 3/23/22 In re A.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.W., A Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B312991

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DIONDRIA D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02218A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, D. Brett Bianco, Judge. Affirmed.

Caitlin Christian, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

Mother Diondria D. appeals the order terminating her 

parental rights to A.W., arguing the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did 

not comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1901 et seq.), because it made an inadequate inquiry about

A.W.’s possible Indian ancestry and the notices sent to the tribes 

were inadequate. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother has a long history of substance abuse, mental 

illness, child neglect, and exposing her children to physical abuse, 

sexual abuse, and domestic violence. She has an extensive child 

welfare history arising from these issues and has failed to reunify 

with A.W.’s five older siblings. (See Diondria D. v. Superior 

Court (Apr. 23, 2021, B307971) [nonpub. opn.].) Infant A.W. was 

removed from mother and father J.W. because of the 

Department’s concerns of neglect based on mother’s extensive 

child welfare history, mother’s positive marijuana test, and 

father’s positive alcohol test. 

The April 20, 2020 petition concerning A.W. states that 

ICWA does not apply. The detention report reflects that mother 

and father denied any Indian ancestry on March 9, 2020.

In the dependency case concerning A.W.’s full-blooded 

sibling, T.W., mother appealed the sufficiency of the 

Department’s ICWA inquiry. Division Seven of this court

conditionally affirmed the order terminating mother’s parental 

rights to T.W., and remanded with instructions for further ICWA 

compliance. (In re T.W. (Aug. 14, 2019, B295013) [nonpub. opn.].) 

Further investigation did not yield any useful information 

indicating that T.W. was an Indian child. The Department 

conducted internet searches and was able to find contact 
3

information for maternal grandfather and one maternal uncle. 

However, the people who answered the Department’s calls denied 

any relationship to mother. Further information could not be 

obtained from mother because her whereabouts were unknown. 

(We grant the Department’s request that we take judicial notice 

of these records.) Notices to the Cherokee tribes were sent and

two tribes responded that T.W. was not eligible for membership, 

and another tribe did not respond. On February 11, 2020, the 

juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply, and reinstated the 

order terminating mother’s parental rights. 

Notwithstanding compliance with ICWA in the case

concerning T.W., and that mother and father denied any Indian 

ancestry on March 9, 2020, on April 22, 2020 (one day before the 

detention hearing) mother filed a parental notification of Indian 

status form (ICWA-020) stating “[o]ne or more of my parents, 

grandparents, or other lineal ancestors is or was a member of a 

federally recognized tribe,” identifying the Cherokee tribe, and 

maternal great-grandmother, Evelyn G., as the tribal member. 

Father’s ICWA-020 form stated that he had no known Indian 

ancestry. 

At the April 23, 2020 detention hearing, the court found 

there was no reason to know that ICWA applied, but ordered 

mother and father to keep the Department and court aware of 

any new information relating to any possible Indian ancestry. 

The Department’s jurisdiction/disposition report noted that 

mother has three brothers, and that maternal grandfather was 

still living. Two of her brothers lived in Sacramento, and the 

other brother’s whereabouts were unknown. Mother did not 

provide any further information about her brothers or maternal 

grandfather to the Department. 
4

At a July 27, 2020 hearing, the juvenile court revisited the

ICWA findings, and asked the Department to investigate A.W.’s 

possible Indian ancestry. Mother told the court she was not a 

registered or enrolled member of a tribe, and did not know 

whether she was eligible for membership in a tribe. The court 

found that without additional information, ICWA did not apply, 

but ordered the Department to address ICWA in its next report. 

The Department interviewed mother on July 28, 2020. 

Mother said she had Indian ancestry in the Cherokee tribe 

through maternal great-grandmother; however, maternal greatgrandmother died when mother was young. Mother did not know 

her date of birth. Maternal grandmother was also deceased. 

Mother reported there were no other family members who would 

have information about their Indian ancestry. Neither maternal 

grandmother nor maternal great-grandmother was registered 

with the tribe. Mother “really did not want to pursue this any 

longer.”

On July 28, 2020, the Department sent notice to the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the 

United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Interior. The notices 

included maternal grandmother’s name and date of birth. The 

notices also included maternal great-grandmother’s name, but no 

other identifying information. 

On September 3, 2020, the Department received certified 

return receipts that notice was delivered to all three Cherokee 

tribes, which were filed with the court on September 16, 2020. 

The Department did not receive any responses from the tribes. 

At the September 24, 2020 disposition hearing, the juvenile 

court declared A.W. a dependent, removed her from parental
5

custody, bypassed reunification services, and set a Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to select and implement 

a permanent plan. (All further references are to this code, unless 

otherwise indicated.) We denied mother’s writ petition 

challenging this order. (Diondria D. v. Superior Court, supra, 

B307971.) Therefore, on May 20, 2021, the juvenile court 

terminated mother’s parental rights. Mother timely appealed. 

While this appeal was pending, the Department filed a 

report indicating it had received a response from the Cherokee 

Nation that A.W. was not an Indian child. 

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.) 

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 believe a child might be an Indian 

child, the Department must provide notice to the Indian tribes. 
6

Notice to the tribes must contain sufficient information to allow

the tribe to conduct a meaningful review of its records to

determine the child’s eligibility for membership. (In re

Jennifer A. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 692, 705.) Section 224.3

requires the notices to include “[a]ll names known of the Indian

child’s biological parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents,

or Indian custodians, including maiden, married, and former

names or aliases, as well as their current and former addresses,

birth dates, place of birth and death, tribal enrollment of other

direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any other identifying

information, if known.” (Id., subd. (a)(5)(C).)

The adequacy of the ICWA inquiry is reviewed for

sufficiency of the evidence. (In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th

1148, 1160-1161.) The harmless error rule applies to ICWA

inquiry challenges. (In re S.B., at p. 1162.) Notice errors are also

subject to harmless error analysis. (In re D.N. (2013)

218 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1251.)

Mother contends the Department’s notices were not sent to 

the correct designated tribal agents (although she does not 

contend the addresses were incorrect), the notices were missing 

identifying information about mother’s relatives which the 

Department could have obtained had it better investigated A.W.’s 

possible Indian ancestry by contacting other maternal relatives, 

and the Department made no further efforts to ask extended 

family members about A.W.’s possible Indian ancestry, such as 

trying again to locate maternal uncles. 

We find any purported error to be necessarily harmless. 

The return receipts confirmed the tribes received the

Department’s notices, so any purported error in stating the tribal

agent’s name was immaterial and irrelevant. There is no reason
7

to believe that further inquiry would result in any more

information about A.W.’s alleged heritage or confirmation that

she is an Indian child. (In re Christopher I. (2003)

106 Cal.App.4th 533, 567.) Mother admitted the only people with

information about A.W.’s possible Indian ancestry were deceased. 

Moreover, the inquiry and findings as to T.W., just months before

this dependency case, plainly show that ICWA does not apply.

(In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 832, 842; see also In re E.W.

(2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 396, 400-402 [the Department’s failure to

comply with ICWA was harmless based on prior ICWA efforts as

to the child’s sibling because “there [wa]s no reason to believe

that providing separate notice regarding [this child] ‘would have

produced different results concerning [this child’s] Indian

heritage.”].) 

DISPOSITION

The order terminating mother’s parental rights to A.W. is 

affirmed.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, J.

HARUTUNIAN, J.*

* Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the 

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

Constitution.