Court Opinion

ID: 9840969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 20:04:57.546313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:43.831014
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 In re A.D. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

 In re A.D., a Person Coming Under                                  B326542
 the Juvenile Court Law.
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                 (Los Angeles County Super.
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                              Ct. No. 18CCJP04559B)
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 M.D.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Tara Newman, Judge. Affirmed.
     Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      ______________________
      Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights
to daughter (born 2019). Mother contends the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
failed to comply with its inquiry duties under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b)—the California
statute implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Mother further contends the
juvenile court failed to ensure compliance with ICWA. DCFS has
submitted a concession letter in lieu of a respondent’s brief,
acknowledging mother’s contentions have merit. We conditionally
affirm the termination of parental rights and remand to allow
DCFS to remedy the ICWA inquiry error, and for the juvenile
court to determine anew whether ICWA applies.
                   PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On April 21, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition under
section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), alleging mother’s substance
abuse and mental and emotional problems rendered her
incapable of providing regular care to daughter, who was 18
months old at the time. The petition also alleged mother’s older
child was a prior dependent of the juvenile court due to the same
history of substance abuse alleged in daughter’s case.1 The

1      The court terminated its jurisdiction over mother’s older
child in 2019, and granted the child’s father sole physical and
legal custody with monitored visitation to mother.

                                 2
juvenile court sustained the allegations regarding mother’s
mental and emotional problems and abuse of sibling.
      In its various reports to the court, DCFS documented its
communications with mother’s family: (1) maternal grandmother
Theresa D.; (2) maternal great cousin K.J.; (3) maternal aunt
Keisha; (4) maternal great-aunt Carolyn D.; (5) maternal cousin
David B.; and (6) maternal cousin Heather D. Mother provided
DCFS with the names of maternal aunt Sylvia L. and maternal
cousin Shay H. for placement purposes. She also provided
contact information for maternal grandfather, Prince D., as well
as a maternal uncle. DCFS’s reports do not disclose that any
relative was asked about daughter’s Native American ancestry.
      At a May 19, 2021, hearing conducted over WebEx, mother
indicated that she had no reason to believe or know that
daughter was an Indian child either through her ancestry or
father’s. The ICWA-020 form, Parental Notification of Indian
Status, was completed that same day by mother via phone with
counsel and mother indicated daughter was not an Indian child.
The court found it had no reason to know daughter was an Indian
child as defined under ICWA.

      Daughter and the older sibling do not share a father.
Mother initially refused to provide any information about
daughter’s father but later disclosed he lived in Las Vegas and
knew daughter was his child. DCFS was ultimately unable to
locate daughter’s father and he is not a party to the proceedings.

                                 3
      On January 19, 2023, the juvenile court found daughter
adoptable and terminated mother’s parental rights. The court
further found it had no reason to know or believe daughter was
an Indian child as defined by ICWA. Thus, the provisions of
ICWA did not apply. Mother timely appealed.
                         DISCUSSION
      On appeal, mother asserts DCFS failed to conduct an
adequate inquiry under ICWA with her extended family members
and the juvenile court failed to ensure ICWA compliance. DCFS
agrees “the ICWA’s inquiry provisions were not followed
regarding the extended maternal family members” and requests
this Court conditionally affirm the order terminating parental
rights and remand the matter for additional ICWA inquiry.
      We find there was noncompliance with the inquiry
requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. Here,
DCFS only inquired with mother regarding Native American
ancestry. DCFS did not ask the available extended family
members about heritage, which ICWA requires. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 224.2, subd. (b); In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433,
438; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.)
                         DISPOSITION
      The January 19, 2023 termination of parental rights order
is conditionally affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the
juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance

                                 4
with the inquiry provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code
section 224.2. The court shall order DCFS to complete an inquiry
into daughter’s Native American ancestry by making reasonable
efforts to interview available extended family members. Nothing
in this disposition precludes the court from ordering additional
inquiry of available extended relatives or others having an
interest in the child. If, after ICWA compliance, the juvenile
court issues an order determining that ICWA does not apply, the
order terminating parental rights shall remain in effect. If the
court determines ICWA applies, it shall vacate the order and
proceed in accordance with ICWA and related state law.

                                     RUBIN, P. J.
I CONCUR:

                  MOOR, J.

                                 5
In re A.D.

B326542

BAKER, J., Dissenting

      I would affirm because substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act does
not apply. (In re A.C. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 130, 132 (dis. opn. of
Baker, J.); In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984; In re H.V.
(2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 439 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.).)

                            BAKER, J.