Court Opinion

ID: 9382798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 19:02:47.260186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.728926
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/23 In re L.L. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.L., et al., Persons                                 2d Juv. No. B322402
 Coming Under the Juvenile                               (Super. Ct. Nos. 20JV00283,
 Court Law.                                                      20JV00284)
                                                           (Santa Barbara County)

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY                                     ORDER MODIFYING
 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL                                    OPINION AND DENYING
 SERVICES,                                                    REHEARING

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                             [NO CHANGE IN THE
                                                                JUDGMENT]
 v.

 L.P.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:
      It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 14,
2023, be modified as follows:
1.   On page 6, at the top of the page, after the sentence
     beginning with “The duty to inquire” and ending with “an
     Indian child” the citation is modified to read as follows:

        (§ 224.2, subds. (a)-(c); In re E.L. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th
     597, 607, review granted Nov. 30, 2022, S276508.)

2.   On page 6, the third full paragraph, after the sentence
     beginning with, “Currently, there is a split of authority”
     and ending with “pursuant to ICWA,” insert a new
     sentence as follows:

         This issue is pending review before our state Supreme
     Court. (In re Kenneth D. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 1027,
     review granted Nov. 30, 2022, S276649.)

        There is no change in judgment.
        Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

GILBERT, P. J.          YEGAN, J.             BALTODANO, J.

                                2
Filed 3/14/23 In re L.L. CA2/6 (unmodified opinion)
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 L.L., et al., Persons                                 2d Juv. No. B322402
 Coming Under the Juvenile                               (Super. Ct. Nos. 20JV00283,
 Court Law.                                                      20JV00284)
                                                           (Santa Barbara County)

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
 SERVICES,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 L.P.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       L.P. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s orders
terminating her parental rights to her minor children, L.L., and
J.L., and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that
the Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) and the
juvenile court failed to comply with their duty of initial inquiry
pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25
U.S.C., § 1901 et seq.) and related California law because
extended family members were not asked about possible Indian
ancestry.2 We conclude the error was harmless in view of the
recent augmentation of the appellate record, which reflects CWS
has complied with its duty of initial inquiry and no known Indian
ancestry has been revealed. We affirm.
                    Facts and Procedural History
       In July 2020, CWS petitioned the juvenile court to detain
20-month-old L.L. and 9-month-old J.L. from mother and Frank
L. (father) due to ongoing domestic violence, substance abuse,
both parents’ criminal histories, and mother’s untreated mental
health issues.3 The petition included an “Indian Child Inquiry
Attachment” that indicated neither parent gave any reason to
believe the children are or may be Indian children.
       At the detention hearing, father denied any Indian
ancestry when asked by the juvenile court. Mother was not
present for the hearing. The juvenile court found there was no

     1 All further undesignated 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 We granted mother’s request for judicial notice of the
related appellate case number B311378.

                                2
reason to believe or reason to know the children are Indian
children and found ICWA did not apply.
       Thereafter, the juvenile court held a hearing to appoint
counsel for mother. At that hearing, mother denied any Indian
ancestry when asked by the juvenile court. Mother also
completed an ICWA-020 form, “Parental Notification of Indian
Status,” and declared, under penalty of perjury, that none of the
criteria indicating Indian ancestry applied to her or her children.
       In August 2020, the juvenile court held the disposition
hearing and found there was no reason to know the children were
Indian children and found ICWA did not apply. It sustained the
amended petition and ordered family reunification services for
both parents.
       During CWS’s investigation and consideration of relative
placements, CWS contacted paternal great grandparents, with
whom L.L. and J.L. were subsequently placed. It also contacted
maternal grandmother. The record does not indicate that CWS
asked any of these extended family members about L.L.’s and
J.L.’s possible Indian ancestry. The record similarly does not
indicate that the juvenile court inquired of any extended family
member about the minor children’s possible Indian ancestry
during court proceedings, even though various relatives appeared
at the proceedings, including paternal great grandparents,
paternal aunt, maternal grandmother, and maternal aunt.
       In March 2021, the juvenile court held a contested six-
month review hearing. Following the hearing, the juvenile court
terminated both parents’ reunification services and set the
matter for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section
366.26.

                                 3
       In October 2021, the juvenile court held a combined
hearing to consider mother’s section 388 petition and conduct the
contested section 366.26 hearing. At the request of county
counsel, the juvenile court once again found there was no reason
to believe that ICWA would apply. Paternal great grandmother
and maternal grandmother were present in the courtroom and
made no objection. The juvenile court granted mother’s section
388 petition and ordered additional reunification services for her.
       In January 2022, at the eighteen-month review hearing,
the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and
set the matter for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to
section 366.26.
       In July 2022, two years after L.L. and J.L. were detained
from mother and father, the juvenile court terminated parental
rights following a contested section 366.26 hearing, found the
children’s placement with paternal great grandparents was
appropriate, and found by clear and convincing evidence the
children are likely to be adopted.
                         Motion to Augment
       On November 14, 2022, prior to filing its respondent’s brief,
CWS filed a motion to augment the record on appeal to include
evidence of an updated “ICWA MATRIX” for L.L. and J.L. that
CWS filed in the juvenile court on October 28, 2022. The
document reveals that between September 2022 and October
2022, CWS contacted paternal great grandmother, paternal great
grandfather, paternal aunt, and maternal grandmother, all of
whom indicated there was no known Indian ancestry in their
family. The document also reveals that on October 13, 2022, two
months after mother filed this appeal, she contacted CWS and
informed them that maternal aunt, whom CWS had attempted to

                                 4
contact, was a minor. Mother reiterated that there was no Indian
ancestry in her family “as they are all from Mexico.”
       After CWS moved to augment the record with the updated
ICWA matrix, mother filed an opposition. She contends this
court should reject the motion “because it is an attempt to
circumvent the requirements of Code of Civil procedure 909;
because it would place this court in a fact-finding position; and
because it does not resolve the issue on appeal.” We deferred
resolution of CWS’s motion to augment pending completion of
briefing.
       We determine that the application of Code of Civil
procedure 909 is appropriate in this case, as we shall explain
below, and grant CWS’s motion to augment the record.
                               Discussion
       Mother contends the judgment terminating her parental
rights should be conditionally affirmed and the matter remanded
to the juvenile court due to the failure of CWS and the juvenile
court to comply with their duty of initial inquiry whether L.L.
and J.L. are or may be Indian children.
       We review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s
Indian ancestry for substantial evidence. (In re Rebecca R. (2006)
143 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1430; § 224.2, subd. (i)(2).)
       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. § 1903(4) & (8); § 224.1, subd. (a).) The juvenile court and
the county child 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.

                                5
Rules of Court, rules 5.481(a) & 5.668(c).) The duty to inquire
begins with the initial contact and obligates the juvenile court
and the child services agency to ask the child, parents, extended
family members, and others who have an interest in the child,
whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subds.
(a)-(c); In re E.L. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 597, 607.)
        Here, both mother and father repeatedly denied having any
Indian ancestry when asked by CWS and by the juvenile court.
Mother also completed the ICWA-020 form and checked the box
indicating she had no Indian ancestry. There was no objection
when the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.
However, the record does not reflect that CWS or the juvenile
court made the required inquiries of extended family members.
CWS admits that it contacted extended family members during
the course of this case, prior to appeal, and “failed to include any
ICWA inquiry in the record.”
        The question becomes whether the error is harmless.
(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836; Cal. Const., art. VI, §
13.)
        Currently, there is a split of authority as to whether an
appellate court should consider additional evidence outside the
lower court record concerning a child services agency’s
investigatory efforts pursuant to ICWA. We conclude that
additional evidence may be considered in certain circumstances,
where as here, the evidence resolves appellant’s ICWA claim of
error on appeal.
        Code of Civil Procedure section 909 permits appellate
courts to make independent factual findings and take additional
evidence on appeal. Our Supreme Court cautions that this
authority should be exercised sparingly. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31

                                 6
Cal.4th 396, 405.) But Code of Civil Procedure section 909 “also
mandates it shall be liberally construed where a cause may be
disposed of in a single appeal.” (In re E.L., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th
at p. 600.) “When, however, postjudgment evidence is offered to
an appellate court in support of a motion to dismiss a juvenile
dependency appeal, it is ‘routinely conder[ed]’ because, if the
motion is granted, it will have ‘the beneficial consequence’ of
‘“expedit[ing] the proceedings and promot[ing] the finality of the
juvenile court’s orders and judgment.”’” (In re Allison B. (2022)
79 Cal.App.5th 214, 219; In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769,
779, fn. 4, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578.)
       Here, the ICWA matrix offered by CWS reflects that after
mother filed her appeal, CWS interviewed all extended family
members with whom it made contact, and each denied Indian
ancestry. Accordingly, the deficiency in CWS’s duty of initial
inquiry has subsequently been cured. Augmentation of the
record in this case, permits us to “achieve now what the trial
court would do on remand – find that ICWA does not apply.” (In
re E.L., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 608.) Therefore, remand of
the matter would be redundant and would unnecessarily delay
the likelihood of adoption of L.L. and J.L.
       Mother resists this conclusion and contends augmentation
of the record does not resolve the error because CWS could have
inquired of additional extended family members, including
paternal grandmother whose contact information was listed in a
police report filed with the court, and maternal grandfather who
was referenced in the disposition report.
       But the augmented record reflects that CWS has complied
with its initial duty to inquire of those extended family members
with whom it had contact. (See In re J.C. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th

                                 7
70, 78-79.) We recognize that any investigation can always be
more robust. However, we will not “set aside” the juvenile court’s
judgment unless it “has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
(Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) Here, it has not. There is no
information to suggest that L.L. and J.L. might be Indian
children or that inquiry of additional extended family members
would reveal some evidence of Indian ancestry.
       We conclude the failure of CWS and the juvenile court to
comply with their duty of initial inquiry has subsequently been
cured as evidenced by the augmented record on appeal, and
therefore the error is harmless.
                              Disposition
       The judgment (orders terminating parental rights and
selecting adoption as the permanent plan) is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                                YEGAN, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                8
                   Gustavo Lavayen, Judge
           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
               ______________________________

     Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein,
Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.