Filed 8/17/23 In re O.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN RE O.S., et al.,

 Persons Coming Under The 

Juvenile Court Law.

_____________________________

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Juv. No. B325469

(Super. Ct. Nos. 21JV00209, 

21JV00210)

(Santa Barbara County)

C.S. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating 

his parental rights to his minor children O.S. and A.S. with a 
2

permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.)

Father’s sole contention is that Santa Barbara County Child 

Welfare Services (CWS) and the juvenile court failed to comply 

with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(ICWA; 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2).

2 We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father is the presumed parent of O.S. and A.S. CWS filed 

a section 300 petition after father surrendered the children to 

social workers in May of 2021. The juvenile court ordered both 

children detained. Father and mother denied Indian ancestry at 

the detention hearing. The juvenile court ordered father and 

mother to provide CWS with a list of maternal and paternal 

relatives. It did not make findings on whether ICWA applied. 

The jurisdiction and disposition report stated mother 

participated in a family assessment on June 25, 2021, but did not 

answer her phone when the agency called four days later to 

conduct a family finding interview. She did not return the social 

worker’s voicemail. The agency located no maternal relatives 

using LEXIS but eventually reached a maternal aunt and 

maternal great aunt who denied Indian ancestry. Voicemails to 

three maternal cousins were not returned. The agency spoke 

with the paternal grandmother, but the jurisdiction and 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same 

for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such 

as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In 

re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1.)
3

disposition report did not state whether the agency questioned 

her about ancestry. 

The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition on 

July 6, 2021. It found ICWA did not apply. The court terminated 

mother’s reunification services at the six-month review hearing

in January of 2022. Father continued to receive them over the 

next six months. The court terminated his services when he 

agreed to a settlement providing him with regular supervised 

visitation with O.S. and A.S. 

Father appeared for a section 366.26 permanency planning 

hearing in October of 2022. Mother did not appear. CWS 

requested the court either continue the case or set a pretrial 

conference so the agency could make additional ICWA inquiries. 

The court set a pretrial conference for December 8, 2022. CWS 

later filed an addendum stating that paternal grandmother and 

two maternal great aunts had denied Indian ancestry as well. At 

the pretrial conference, the court reiterated ICWA did not apply

and terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights. It found 

adoption to be the permanent plan for both children.

DISCUSSION

Father contends the order terminating his parental rights

must be reversed and the matter remanded to the juvenile court. 

He argues the court failed to comply with ICWA’s inquiry 

requirements and section 224.2 because CWS did not contact four

family members who were available to provide information about 

potential Indian ancestry: maternal grandmother, maternal 

great-grandmother, and two paternal aunts named Jessica and 

Katie. We are not persuaded.

We generally review a juvenile court’s ICWA findings for 

substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 498, 504.) 
4

The parties do not dispute the material facts. As such, ““‘we 

review independently whether ICWA requirements have been 

satisfied.”’” (Ibid.) 

ICWA defines an “‘Indian child’” as “any unmarried person 

who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an 

Indian tribe or (b) 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) & (8); § 224.1, subd. (a).) The juvenile court 

and county welfare department have an affirmative and 

continuing duty to inquire whether a child subject to dependency 

proceedings is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. 

Rules of Court, rules 5.481(a) & 5.668(c).) 

Father describes maternal grandmother and maternal 

great-grandmother as “readily available” to field ICWA inquiries 

because mother mentioned them during her social study/family 

assessment interview on June 25, 2021. The record contradicts 

this assertion. A LEXIS relative search conducted by CWS on 

June 29 during its family finding efforts generated no results for 

mother. Mother did not answer her phone that day or return the 

social worker’s voicemail inquiring about relatives. She stopped 

attending court proceedings altogether after the July 6, 2021 

jurisdiction and disposition hearing. She had minimal 

communication with CWS and her whereabouts became 

unknown. (See In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1082, 

interpreting § 224.2, subd. (b) [“we cannot ask [CWS] to intuit the 

names of unidentified family members or to interview individuals 

for whom no contact information has been provided”].)

The record shows “Jessica” is the girlfriend of father’s 

brother, Enrique. CWS had no reason to ask her about Indian 

ancestry because Enrique denied ancestry early in the 
5

proceedings. Paternal aunt “Katie,” was interviewed shortly 

after father surrendered O.S. and A.S. but apparently not 

questioned concerning ICWA. However, we conclude failing to 

follow up with her is not error in these circumstances because her 

mother (i.e., paternal grandmother) and two brothers (paternal 

uncle Enrique and father) all denied Indian ancestry on their side 

of the family. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is 

affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.
Gustavo Lavayen, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant C.S

Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 

Senior Deputy Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.