Court Opinion

ID: 9828101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:06:02.783237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.854404
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/1/23 In re A.C. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re A.C., a Person Coming                                    B325558
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                               Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                             Super. Ct. No.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                         19CCJP05685C
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

M.T.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Linda Sun, Judge. Conditionally affirmed
and remanded with directions.
      Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    _________________________
       Mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her
parental rights to her son A.C. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26,
subd. (b)(1).)1 She contends the evidence was insufficient
to support the court’s finding that the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (Department)
conducted an adequate inquiry under state law (§ 224 et seq.)
implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA
or Act) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The record shows mother
presented information to the court indicating her paternal
grandfather was a registered member of an Indian tribe and
received attendant benefits, although she did not know the tribe’s
name. While the Department made efforts to interview maternal
relatives to verify the information, it did not contact the Bureau
of Indian Affairs or the State Department of Social Services
for assistance in identifying the tribe, as required under section
224.2, subdivision (e)(2)(B). Under these circumstances, we must
conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order and remand for
further proceedings consistent with ICWA and our implementing
state law.
            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       The juvenile court took jurisdiction of A.C. (born
November 2015) on sustained counts of neglect stemming from
the parents’ abuse of methamphetamine and other narcotics.
(§ 300, subd. (b).)2

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code; rule references are to the California Rules
of Court.
2     Father is not a party to this appeal.

                                 2
       The maternal grandmother and great-grandmother raised
mother. Her parents had divorced when she was eight years old.
Mother had a relationship with her father, but he passed away
when she was 12 years old. Her only sibling is a half-brother
on her father’s side.
       Before the detention hearing, mother and father each
filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020).
Both parents declared they had no Indian ancestry as far as they
knew.
       On September 4, 2019, the juvenile court held the initial
detention hearing. In addition to the parents, the maternal
grandmother, great-grandmother, and great-aunt were present.
After receiving the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and noting
the parents reported no Indian ancestry, the juvenile court
announced its tentative finding that there was no reason
to believe A.C. was an Indian child, before asking the parties
present if “[a]nyone wish[ed] to be heard.” No one objected
to the finding. The court ordered the parents to keep the
Department, their counsel, and the court aware of any
new information relevant to possible ICWA status.
       On November 27, 2019, the court held the adjudication
hearing. The maternal relatives were present outside the
courtroom waiting for mother, who had stepped away before
the hearing began. The court asked counsel if there was any
“further information regarding Indian ancestry from any party
at this time?” Neither father’s nor mother’s counsel responded.
The court reaffirmed it had no reason to believe A.C. was an
Indian child, citing the parents’ denials of Indian ancestry
on their ICWA-020 forms.

                               3
      The Department maintained contact with the maternal
grandmother and great-grandmother regarding mother’s
progress on her case plan, until the court terminated the parents’
reunification services on March 11, 2021. The maternal
great-grandmother later passed away.
      In advance of the pending section 366.26 hearing, the
Department reported that, on May 11, 2022, mother had again
denied having Indian ancestry in her family.
      On April 19, 2022, mother filed a section 388 petition
requesting modification of the court’s order terminating her
reunification services. Mother declared she had since enrolled
in a drug treatment program and submitted to drug testing.
The juvenile court set a hearing on the petition.
      On May 23, 2022, the court held a hearing on mother’s
section 388 petition. Mother did not appear. Her counsel,
however, reported that mother “recently . . . found out that
her grandfather on her father’s side is a member of a tribe,
and she believes him to be actually receiving benefits.” Mother
had advised counsel that she planned to contact “some relatives
to obtain the additional information,” but he had not been able
to reach her since their conversation a week earlier. Counsel
did not know the maternal great-grandfather’s name or the
name of the tribe. The court ordered the Department to contact
mother, to reinterview all maternal relatives regarding mother’s
ICWA claim, and to provide necessary notices to the tribes before
the next hearing.
      At the court’s direction, mother’s counsel filed a new
ICWA-020 form, declaring, “Mother has information that her
grandmother and [the] great grandfather on mother’s father’s

                                4
side were registered members of a native American tribe.” With
respect to the name of the tribe, the form stated, “Unknown.”
       On June 2, 2022, the Department reached mother. Mother
reported, “ ‘I just found out that my dad’s grandmother was
half Indian.’ ” She provided her grandfather’s name (Roberto T.),
but said he was “on vacation” and she did not know how to reach
him. She had a paternal cousin who lived nearby and might
know more, but she did not have contact information for him or
any of her paternal relatives. Mother said she “would be doing
an unannounced visit” in a few days to inquire about her possible
Indian heritage and would contact the Department on June 6,
2022. Mother did not contact the dependency investigator.
       On June 8, 2022, the dependency investigator left a
voicemail message on mother’s cell phone, asking mother to
contact the investigator about her family’s Indian heritage.
Mother did not respond to the message. The investigator
attempted to contact mother twice more the same week and
received no response. She was unable to leave a message
because mother’s voicemail box was full. The investigator
sent mother a text message, but again received no response.
       On June 21, 2022, the Department filed a report detailing
its efforts to investigate mother’s claimed Indian heritage.
The report stated mother had “failed to provide any information
to submit an inquiry regarding her claims of American Indian
Heritage”; however, it contained no record of the Department
contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs or State Department
of Social Services with the maternal great-grandfather’s name
or information about the benefits mother claimed he received.
       Mother did not appear at the June 28, 2022 hearing.
The court observed mother had not provided sufficient

                                5
information for the Department to investigate her ICWA claim.
Mother’s counsel said he had the names of some family members.
He also expected to receive more information, but he had
not heard back from mother. He still did not have contact
information for the maternal great-grandfather but said he
would provide it as soon as he received it from mother.
       The juvenile court ordered the Department to “follow up
with” the individuals mother’s counsel identified and “to comb
through all the earlier reports to identify additional family
members” who had not been interviewed regarding ICWA.
       Mother’s counsel provided the names of two relatives
and their dates of birth. In a subsequent report to the court,
the Department noted both relatives were deceased. The report
did not document the relative’s relationship to mother or what
efforts the Department made to use the relatives’ information
to investigate A.C.’s possible ICWA status. The report stated
only that “both relatives were deceased, therefore, [the
dependency investigator] was unable to interview [them].”
       From July 12 to July 18, 2022, the dependency investigator
made three attempts to contact mother. Mother did not answer
her phone, her voicemail box was still full, and she did not
respond to the investigator’s text messages or otherwise
communicate with the Department.3

3     On July 22, 2022, the juvenile court ordered the
Department to interview the paternal grandfather and uncle
regarding ICWA. The paternal grandparents reported father’s
family did not have Indian heritage, both in an interview with
the dependency investigator and when questioned by the court
at a subsequent hearing. Mother does not challenge the court’s
ICWA finding with respect to father’s family.

                                6
       On September 7, 2022, the Department submitted a new
report in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. The report
detailed the dependency investigator’s efforts to contact mother
and to develop relevant information regarding A.C.’s possible
Indian heritage. The Department maintained mother and the
maternal grandmother had failed to provide the “additional
information” needed to submit an ICWA inquiry and
recommended the court find insufficient information to believe
A.C. was an Indian child. The report did not indicate that the
Department had contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs or
State Department of Social Services for assistance identifying
the maternal great-grandfather’s possible tribe.
       Mother appeared telephonically for the section 366.26
hearing. Her counsel argued she had a beneficial relationship
with A.C. worth preserving and she had consistently visited with
the child, except when mother was in a resident drug treatment
program and during a period when she had COVID-19. Mother’s
counsel did not address the Department’s ICWA
recommendation.
       The juvenile court found there was no reason to believe
A.C. was an Indian child, explaining: “On May 11th of 2022,
the mother continues to deny that she has any American Indian
heritage, but a few weeks later on May 23rd, she filed an updated
[ICWA-]020 form on the day of the [section] 388 petition hearing
indicating that [the] maternal grandmother and her great-
grandfather [sic] on her father’s side were registered members
of a tribe. [¶] The Department has followed up with her relatives
as documented in the most recent [section 366.]26 report. The
Department contacted the mother and the maternal grandmother
and left multiple messages in July and received no response. The

                                7
court notes that the maternal great grandmother has recently
passed, and the Department cannot follow-up with her. [¶] So
we have no response from the mother’s side of the family with
regard to her American Indian heritage. However, throughout
the life of this case, starting from the detention, the mother did
file her initial [ICWA-]020 form which indicated that she has
none. Until May 11th, she continued to deny American Indian
heritage.”
       Thus, the court found the Department had made “diligent
efforts in following up with the case participants and extended
family members,” and there was “no sufficient reason to believe
that there is Indian ancestry in this case.” The court denied
mother’s request to make an exception to the preferred plan
for adoption and terminated mother’s parental rights.
                             DISCUSSION
       Mother argues the Department failed to satisfy its
statutory duty under ICWA to make further inquiry regarding
A.C.’s possible Indian heritage after she informed the court
she had discovered information indicating her great-grandmother
and grandfather (A.C.’s great-great-grandmother and great-
grandfather) on mother’s father’s side were registered members
of a federally recognized Indian tribe. (See § 224.2, subd. (d)(3).)
Specifically, mother maintains the inquiry was inadequate
because the Department (1) failed to interview maternal relatives
about the family’s Indian heritage; and (2) failed to contact the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and State Department of Social Services
for assistance identifying the tribes in which A.C. might be
eligible for membership. Due to these shortcomings, mother
contends the juvenile court erred in prematurely finding
ICWA did not apply to this proceeding. We agree the inquiry

                                 8
was deficient to the extent the Department failed to contact
relevant government agencies for assistance in determining
the validity of mother’s ICWA claim.
       “Where, as here, the juvenile court finds ICWA does not
apply to a child, ‘[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 workers had fulfilled their
duty of inquiry.’ ” (In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 688
(J.S.), italics added; accord In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041,
1050 [“[t]he juvenile court may . . . make a finding that ICWA
does not apply because the Agency’s further inquiry and due
diligence was ‘proper and adequate’ but no ‘reason to know’
whether the child is an Indian child was discovered”]; see § 224.2,
subd. (i)(2).) “ ‘[W]e review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings
under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to
determine if reasonable, credible evidence of solid value
supports the court’s order. [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.’ ” (In re D.F. (2020) 55
Cal.App.5th 558, 565 (D.F.).)
       “ICWA reflects a congressional determination to protect
American Indian children and to promote the stability and
security of Indian tribes and families.” (In re Josiah T. (2021)
71 Cal.App.5th 388, 401 (Josiah T.), citing 25 U.S.C. § 1902.)
To that end, ICWA establishes unique standards for the removal
and placement of Indian children, including special procedural
rules to determine whether an Indian child is involved in the
proceeding. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

                                  9
       The juvenile court and county welfare agency have “an
affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child
subject to a section 300 petition may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2,
subd. (a); D.F., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 566.) “This continuing
duty can be divided into three phases: the initial duty to inquire,
the duty of further inquiry, and the duty to provide formal
ICWA notice.” (D.F., at p. 566; Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th
at p. 402.) The agency must document its investigation and
provide a detailed description of all inquiries undertaken.
(Rule 5.481(a)(5).)
       The duty to make an initial inquiry is triggered once a
child is removed from parental custody. (In re Ezequiel G. (2022)
81 Cal.App.5th 984, 998.) If a child is placed into the temporary
custody of a county welfare agency, the agency must ask “the
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 and where the child, the parents, or Indian
custodian is domiciled.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).) Additionally, at
each participant’s first appearance in the dependency proceeding,
the court must ask whether the participant knows or has reason
to know the child is an Indian child. (Id., subd. (c).)
       The court and the agency must make “further inquiry”
if either has “reason to believe” an Indian child is involved.
(§ 224.2, subd. (e).) “There is reason to believe a child involved
in a proceeding is an Indian child whenever the court, social
worker, or probation officer has information suggesting that
either the parent of the child or the child is a member or may
be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Information
suggesting membership or eligibility for membership includes,

                                10
but is not limited to, information that indicates, but does not
establish, the existence of one or more of the grounds for reason
to know [the child is an Indian child].” (Id., subd. (e)(1).) Those
grounds include, among other things, when “[a]ny participant
in the proceeding . . . informs the court that [he or she] has
discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian
child.” (Id., subd. (d)(3).)
       Our state law establishes steps the court and the agency
must take in “further inquiry,” including, but not limited to,
interviewing parents and extended family members and
notifying the Bureau of Indian Affairs and any tribes “that
may reasonably be expected to have information regarding
the child’s membership, citizenship status, or eligibility.”
(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A)–(C); see also rule 5.481(a)(4).) We
are concerned here with the statutory mandate to notify
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       “When there is reason to believe the child is an Indian
child, further inquiry is necessary to help the court, social
worker, or probation officer determine whether there is reason
to know a child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2).)
To that end, our state law directs the county welfare agency
to “[c]ontact[ ] the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the State
Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying
the names and contact information of the tribes in which the
child may be a member, or eligible for membership in” and
for assistance in “contacting the tribes and any other person
that may reasonably be expected to have information regarding

                                 11
the child’s membership status or eligibility.” (Id., subd. (e)(2)(B),
italics added.)4
       Consistent with the statute’s plain language, our courts
have construed this directive to require the county welfare
agency “to obtain all possible information about the minor’s
potential Indian background and provide that information
to the relevant tribe or, if the tribe is unknown, to the [Bureau
of Indian Affairs].” (In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622,
630, italics added; In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 663
[“if the court ‘knows or has reason to know that an Indian child
is involved,’ notice of the pending proceeding and the right to
intervene must be sent to the tribe or the [Bureau of Indian
Affairs] if the tribal affiliation is not known”]; accord Josiah T.,
supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 405.) This interpretation accords
with federal law. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)5

4        Rule 5.481(a)(4) similarly provides: “If the social worker,
probation officer, licensed adoption agency, adoption service
provider, investigator, or petitioner knows or has reason to know
or believe that an Indian child is or may be involved, that person
or entity must make further inquiry as soon as practicable by:
. . . [c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the California
Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying
the names and contact information of the tribes in which the
child may be a member or eligible for membership.”
5      “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where
the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child
is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or
termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify
the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by
registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending
proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or
location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot

                                 12
       The Department does not dispute the duty of further
inquiry was triggered when mother notified the juvenile court
that she had discovered information indicating her great-
grandmother and grandfather on her father’s side were
registered members of an Indian tribe. (See § 224.2, subd. (d)(3);
cf. In re J.L. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 913, 923 [no further inquiry
duty where the mother “did not know whether she had American
Indian heritage of any kind, did not know the names of the
relatives who might have had such heritage, and had heard
only a ‘general or vague’ reference to possible heritage”].) The
juvenile court also plainly found the duty had been triggered,
as it ordered the Department to reinterview mother’s extended
relatives regarding the family’s possible tribal membership
and to provide required notices to the tribes consistent with
the mandates of section 224.2, subdivision (e)(2).
       Notwithstanding the court’s order, there is no record
of the Department “[c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the State Department of Social Services for assistance
in identifying the names and contact information of the tribes
in which the child may be a member, or eligible for membership.”

be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary [of the
Interior] in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt
to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian
and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of
parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days
after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and
the tribe or the Secretary.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a), italics added;
see also 25 U.S.C. § 1a [Secretary of Interior authorized
to delegate duties to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and
Commissioner is authorized to delegate to any assistant
commissioner or officer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs].)

                                13
(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(B).) While the Department’s reports
document repeated attempts to reinterview mother and her
relatives, those reports are entirely silent regarding any other
efforts to identify or notify the tribes that might have information
regarding A.C.’s possible eligibility for membership. The
respondent’s brief is similarly silent concerning this latter aspect
of the further inquiry requirement, noting only that mother’s
most recent ICWA-020 form listed the name of her paternal
relatives’ tribe as “Unknown.” But the fact that the family’s
possible tribal affiliations were unknown was precisely what
made the need to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs “for
assistance in identifying the names and contact information
of the tribes” so critical. (Ibid.) Because the Department did
not fulfill its statutorily mandated duty to contact the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the juvenile court’s ICWA finding was premature
and erroneous. (See Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 408
[“the court may not find that ICWA does not apply when the
absence of evidence that a child is an Indian child results from
a [county welfare agency] inquiry that is not proper, adequate,
or demonstrative of due diligence”].)
       As the Department does not address the failure to contact
the relevant agencies, it also does not attempt to show the error
was harmless. For our part, we cannot independently find
harmless error in this case. According to mother’s counsel,
mother had information indicating her paternal grandfather was
a registered member of an Indian tribe and he received attendant
benefits. Whether this is true or not, we can reasonably assume
the Bureau of Indian Affairs might have been able to verify the
claim if the Department had contacted the agency with mother’s
grandfather’s name and other information mother provided.

                                14
(See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 13 [“The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under
the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, shall direct,
supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time
to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the
Indians throughout the United States.”]; Morton v. Ruiz (1974)
415 U.S. 199, 204, 211–212 [evidence of family’s close economic
and social ties to tribe required invalidation of Bureau of Indian
Affairs rule which denied federal benefits to Indian family
who lived off of the tribal reservation]; cf. J.S., supra, 62
Cal.App.5th at pp. 684, 689–690 [absent information establishing
“specific geographic area of possible ancestry origin,” contacting
Bureau of Indian Affairs would have been “idle act” where
grandmother reported her “family was ‘of Mexican descent’ ”
and only information regarding possible Indian heritage was
ancestry.com result indicating “ ‘approximately 54% Native
American lineage/heritage’ ” covering “ ‘ethnic origins’ from
North America and South America, ‘[s]tretching from Alaska
to the tip of Argentina’ ”].)
       Accordingly, we must conditionally affirm the order
terminating parental rights and remand with directions to
the juvenile court to order the Department to perform an
investigation consistent with the law and this decision, including
contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs for assistance in

                                15
identifying the tribe or tribes in which A.C. may be eligible
for membership.6
                           DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights
is conditionally affirmed. The case is remanded to the juvenile
court to order the Department to comply immediately with the
inquiry provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2.
After ensuring the Department has complied with the inquiry,
and, if applicable, notice provisions of ICWA and related
California law, the juvenile court shall determine whether
ICWA applies. If the court determines ICWA does not apply,
the order terminating parental rights shall remain in effect.

6      While remanding this matter to the juvenile court will
allow the Department to make another attempt to interview
mother and the available maternal relatives, there should be
no confusion about mother’s obligation to cooperate with the
Department’s investigative efforts. As we recently explained,
“[a]lthough it is well established that the duty to develop
information bearing on whether a child is an Indian child
‘rests with the court and the Department, not the parents or
members of the parents’ families’ [citation], in most cases the
court and [the Department] cannot satisfy this duty without
the participation of the parents. While we believe it reasonable
in many cases to require [the Department] to follow up on leads
provided by the parents, we cannot ask the agency to intuit the
names of unidentified family members or to interview individuals
for whom no contact information has been provided.” (In re Q.M.
(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1082.)

                               16
If the court determines ICWA does apply, it shall vacate its order
terminating parental rights and proceed consistent with ICWA
and related state law.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                     EGERTON, J.

We concur:

             EDMON, P. J.

             ADAMS, J.

                                17