Filed 6/28/22 In re L.A. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re L.A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B312752

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 20CCJP00331A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, 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.

______________________________

Defendant and appellant L.C. (mother) appeals from an 

order terminating her parental rights to L.A. (minor, born 

Jan. 2019). Mother’s sole contention is that the juvenile court 

and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the requirements of the 

Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 

et seq.).

We affirm.

BACKGROUND1

Referral

In December 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging 

general neglect and physical abuse of minor by mother. During 

an interview with a DCFS social worker, mother provided the 

1 Because ICWA error is the only issue raised in this appeal, 

this summary of the factual and procedural background focuses 

on matters related to ICWA compliance. (In re I.B. (2015) 

239 Cal.App.4th 367, 370.)
3

partial name of minor’s father (father),

2 stating that he had two 

last names but that she only remembered one. She provided 

father’s age but not his birthdate. Mother did not provide any 

contact information for father. The social worker “completed a 

CWS/CMS search”; there were “no hits” for father’s name.

Detention and Dependency Petition

Minor was detained from mother in January 2020 and 

placed with a nonrelated extended family member. Shortly 

thereafter, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 3003 petition seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of 

dependency jurisdiction.

Detention Hearing

On January 22, 2020, mother filed a Parental Notification 

of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form indicating that she may have 

Indian ancestry through her father (maternal grandfather).4

At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered DCFS 

“to investigate Indian ancestry, including attempting to interview 

maternal relatives.” The juvenile court acknowledged the 

paternity questionnaire submitted by mother, which identified 

2 Father did not appear in the proceedings below and is not a 

party to this appeal.

3 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

4 Mother had initially signed an “Indian Ancestry 

Questionnaire” in December 2019, indicating that she had no 

information regarding any Indian ancestry of minor.
4

father as minor’s parent.5 The court found father to be minor’s 

presumed father.

Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

When interviewed by a DCFS dependency investigator in 

February 2020, both maternal grandfather and minor’s maternal 

aunt (maternal aunt) denied having Indian ancestry.

When asked about father’s whereabouts, maternal aunt 

denied having any contact information for him or knowing 

someone who might have such information. She stated: “‘We 

don’t have contact with him like that, he kinds [sic] shows up out 

of nowhere . . . .” Maternal grandfather also denied having

contact information for father; he identified only mother as 

someone who might have information about him.

Mother told the dependency investigator that she did not 

have any contact information for father and did not know his 

birthdate. Mother stated that she would check her contact list to 

see if she knew of anyone who could be contacted “to get in touch 

with” father.

Without father’s birthdate or identifying information, 

DCFS reported that it had been unable to locate him.

ICWA Findings

On February 20, 2020, the juvenile court referenced 

maternal aunt’s and maternal grandfather’s denial of Indian 

ancestry. DCFS requested that the court make a “[n]o ICWA 

finding.” The court asked if anyone wished to be heard on the 

issue; the reporter’s transcript indicates no response to the 

court’s inquiry. The court then found that “ICWA notice [was] 

5 The section of the questionnaire regarding how to locate 

father was left blank.
5

proper and complete[,]”6 that it did not have reason to know or 

believe that minor was an Indian child as defined by ICWA, and 

that ICWA did not apply to these proceedings. The court did not 

order notice to any tribe or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Last Minute Information for the Court (March 4, 2020)

DCFS described its continued efforts to locate father in a 

last minute information for the court filed in early March 2020.

DCFS’s due diligence search revealed only one person in 

the United States with father’s name. When the dependency 

investigator contacted that individual, he denied knowing anyone 

by mother’s or minor’s name. He stated that he was 57 years old7

and did not have any children.

The dependency investigator contacted mother again to 

inquire about father’s whereabouts. Mother reported that she 

had been unable to locate father through collaterals but that she 

would drive to father’s grandmother’s house to see if she could 

locate him. The dependency investigator asked mother to provide 

father’s grandmother’s address so that DCFS could contact her.

Mother said that she did not know the exact address but could 

drive to the home by memory. The dependency investigator 

again asked mother to provide her with the address or other

information so that DCFS could make contact. Mother said she 

would contact father’s grandmother and call the dependency 

investigator back.

Mother called the dependency investigator a week later to 

report that she had attempted to contact father via social media. 

6 It appears that the juvenile court misspoke when it 

referred to “ICWA notice” rather than the inquiry requirements.

7 Mother had reported that father was in his 20’s.
6

Mother had also driven to father’s grandmother’s home, but she 

no longer resided there. Mother reported that she had no way of 

contacting father.

Adjudication

At the March 5, 2020, adjudication hearing, the juvenile 

court referenced DCFS’s efforts to locate father, including its due 

diligence search and mother’s report that father’s grandmother 

had moved. The court found notice to the parents proper. The 

court sustained the section 300 petition as amended by 

interlineation and continued the matter for disposition.

On June 26, 2020, the juvenile court declared minor a 

dependent of the court, removed him from mother’s custody, and 

ordered DCFS to provide mother with family reunification 

services. The court found “by clear and convincing evidence that 

[DCFS] . . . submitted a due diligence search, an affidavit of due 

diligence search, and the father’s whereabouts are unknown.” On 

that basis, the court denied father reunification services.8

Termination of Parental Rights

The juvenile court terminated reunification services for 

mother on December 16, 2020, and set the matter for a 

section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.

DCFS conducted another due diligence search for father. 

His whereabouts remained unknown. DCFS published notice of 

the permanency planning hearing in a newspaper on four 

nonconsecutive days. On April 13, 2021, the juvenile court found 

8 Under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), reunification 

services need not be provided to a parent if the court finds, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that the whereabouts of the parent 

are unknown.
7

that notice was proper as to father for the upcoming hearing on 

May 19, 2021.

On May 19, 2021, the juvenile court terminated mother’s 

and father’s parental rights to minor.

Appeal

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the order 

terminating parental rights.

DISCUSSION

I. Relevant Law

“[The] ICWA reflects a congressional determination to 

protect Indian children and to promote the stability and security 

of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum federal 

standards that a state court, except in emergencies, must follow 

before removing an Indian child from his or her family.”9 (In re 

Austin J. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 870, 881–882; see also 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1902.)

Under California law, DCFS and the juvenile court “have 

an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” into whether a 

dependent child “is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, 

subd. (a); see also In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 

741–742.) This duty includes DCFS asking the parents, 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); see also Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 5.481(a)(1)), and the juvenile court inquiring at each 

9 An “‘Indian child’ means 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. 

§ 1903(4); see also § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal definition].)
8

party’s first appearance in the proceedings whether he or she 

knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child 

(§ 224.2, subd. (c); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)). 

Further inquiry and notice to the tribes may be required only if 

there is “reason to believe” or “reason to know” that the child is 

an Indian child based upon this initial inquiry.10 (§ 224.2,

subds. (d), (e), & (f); 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c) (2019).)

A spate of appellate courts has recently weighed in on the 

consequence of a social services agency’s failure to conduct the 

required ICWA inquiry, resulting in “a continuum of tests for 

prejudice stemming from error in following California statutes 

implementing ICWA.” (In re A.C. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1009, 

1011; see also In re Dezi C. (June 14, 2022, B317935) 

___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2022 Cal.App.Lexis 514, at pp. *7–*9].) Our 

Division has adopted the following rule: “[A]n agency’s failure to 

conduct a proper initial inquiry into a dependent child’s 

American Indian heritage is harmless unless the record contains 

information suggesting a reason to believe that the child may be 

an ‘Indian child’ within the meaning of ICWA, such that the 

absence of further inquiry was prejudicial to the juvenile court’s 

ICWA finding. For this purpose, the ‘record’ includes both the 

record of proceedings in the juvenile court and any proffer the 

appealing parent makes on appeal.” (In re Dezi C., supra, at 

p. *10.)

II. Standard of Review

We review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings for 

substantial evidence. (In re Dezi C., supra, ___ Cal.App.5th ___

10 Here, mother only challenges compliance with the initial 

duty of inquiry as to father’s possible Indian ancestry, so the 

duties of further inquiry and notice are not at issue. (See In re 

Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 742.)
9

[2022 Cal.App.Lexis 514, at p. *6].) Under this standard, “[w]e 

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.] Mother, as 

the appellant, ‘has the burden to show that the evidence was not 

sufficient to support the findings and orders.’ [Citation.]” (In re 

Austin J., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 885.)

III. Analysis

A. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s ICWA 

finding

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding 

that ICWA does not apply to minor.

DCFS investigated mother’s claim of possible Indian 

ancestry through maternal grandfather by interviewing maternal 

grandfather and maternal aunt. Both denied Indian ancestry.11

No inquiry regarding Indian ancestry could be made of 

father because his whereabouts were unknown during the 

entirety of the proceedings below. Albeit ultimately unsuccessful, 

DCFS’s efforts to locate father were extensive and demonstrate 

its exercise of due diligence.

The information provided by mother regarding father was 

limited—a partial name, an age but no birthdate, and no contact 

information. DCFS contacted the only person in the United 

States with father’s partial name. He was significantly older 

than the age mother had reported that father was, and he denied 

knowing mother or minor.

DCFS also asked both maternal grandfather and maternal 

aunt about father’s whereabouts, and each denied having contact 

11 Mother does not argue on appeal that DCFS’s inquiry 

regarding her own possible Indian ancestry was deficient.
10

information for him. Maternal aunt denied knowing anyone else 

who might have contact information for father, and maternal 

grandfather only identified mother as someone who might have 

such information.

When mother mentioned that she would drive to father’s 

grandmother’s house in an attempt to locate him, the dependency 

investigator repeatedly asked mother to provide the 

grandmother’s address so that DCFS could make contact.

Mother would not provide that information and later reported 

that father’s grandmother no longer resided at the address.

Thus, DCFS had no actionable information enabling it to 

contact father’s extended family members to make inquiries of 

them. And, as there was no information before the juvenile court 

to suggest that minor might be an Indian child through father, 

substantial evidence supports its order that ICWA did not apply.

B. Any error was harmless

Urging us to reverse, mother contends that DCFS failed to 

meet its initial duty of inquiry regarding father’s possible Indian 

ancestry because the DCFS social worker did not ask mother 

what father’s grandmother’s name was or ask for the name of 

another paternal relative. She also points to a lack of evidence in 

the record showing that DCFS “pursu[ed] any other source of 

inquiry, such as others having an interest in the child, or the 

party reporting child abuse or neglect, regarding paternal Indian 

ancestry.” Finally, she argues that, following its ICWA finding 

on February 20, 2020, the juvenile court failed to revisit ICWA in 

violation of its ongoing duty of inquiry.

We are unpersuaded by these arguments. Applying the 

“‘reason to believe’ rule” that we adopted in In re Dezi C., supra, 

___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2022 Cal.App.Lexis 514, at pages *10–*11], 
11

we conclude that any possible error was harmless because 

nothing in the record suggests a reason to believe that minor is 

an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. Mother makes no 

proffer on appeal that father has any Indian heritage, that

mother knew father’s grandmother’s name or that of any other 

paternal relative if she had been asked, that the names of 

paternal relatives would have shed any light on whether minor 

was an Indian child,

12 or that anyone else having an interest in 

the child, including the reporting party, would have known 

anything pertaining to whether minor had Indian heritage

through father.

Finally, as for mother’s claim that the juvenile court failed 

to comply with its ongoing duty of inquiry after finding that

ICWA did not apply, mother has not suggested that there was a 

reasonable probability of obtaining meaningful information 

through continued inquiry. (See In re Benjamin M., supra, 

70 Cal.App.5th at p. 744 [continued inquiry is required “where 

the probability of obtaining meaningful information is reasonable 

in the context of ICWA”].) After all, father never appeared in the 

proceedings below and the record does not reflect that any 

12 Mother argues “that DCFS has access to databases and 

search engines that would allow a comprehensive and thorough 

search if they were provided a name to search.” Mother does not, 

however, cite any authority requiring DCFS to conduct a due 

diligence search to locate extended family members to inquire 

about Indian ancestry. (Cf. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(3) 

[requiring the court to order a due diligence search to find and 

inform a parent, Indian custodian, or guardian who does not 

appear at the first hearing, or is unavailable at the initiation of a 

proceeding, that he or she must complete a Parental Notification 

of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form].)
12

paternal relative of whom inquiry could have been made was ever 

located or otherwise became involved in the case.

Remand is unwarranted.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_____________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT