Court Opinion

ID: 9909699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 21:02:23.320693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:55.259876
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/13/23 In re L.S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.S., a Person Coming                                     B328502
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           No. 21CCJP03065A)

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 M.S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Temporary Judge.
Dismissed.
      Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and David Michael Miller, Senior
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
     M.S. appeals from the April 11, 2023 order terminating
parental rights to L.S. (minor) under Welfare and Institutions
Code section 366.26.1 M.S. contends that the juvenile court
erroneously failed to ensure compliance with the inquiry and
notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). Because M.S. is an alleged
father, we dismiss his appeal.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

      M.S. is minor’s alleged father, and his name does not
appear on minor’s birth certificate. Shortly after N.K. (mother)3
gave birth to minor, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) filed a section 300
petition alleging minor was at risk of harm based on mother and
minor testing positive for methamphetamine and opiates at the
child’s birth, M.S.’s status as a past and current substance
abuser, and mother and M.S.’s failure to reunify with other
children who had previously been declared dependents by the
juvenile court. M.S. was incarcerated at the time minor was
detained.

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

      2 We limit our recitation of facts to those relevant to
appealability, except as is necessary for context.
      3 Mother is not a party to the current appeal.

                                 2
       At an arraignment hearing on July 21, 2021, M.S.
submitted a Statement Regarding Parentage (JV-505) form,
indicating that he did not know if he was the child’s parent and
requested a DNA test for paternity. He also filed Parental
Notification of Indian Status (ICWA-020) form denying any
Indian ancestry. The court appointed counsel to represent M.S.,
found him to be an alleged father, ordered DNA testing, and
found ICWA inapplicable to M.S.
       Mother was not present in court, but a day earlier, her
attorney had filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status
(ICWA-020) form claiming that minor may be a member of, or
eligible for membership in, an Indian tribe. Mother claimed her
paternal grandfather was 100 percent Native American, but
according to her counsel, mother was estranged from that
grandparent and would need to look into it further to identify a
tribe. The court ordered the Department to investigate mother’s
claim. The Department spoke to maternal grandmother, who did
not know the tribe’s name or have much information, but
reported “the American Indian is on her adoptive father’s side,”
and said mother should have the information and suggested the
Department “ ‘look on one of those ancestry websites for more
information.’ ” Maternal grandfather said there was no ICWA
ancestry on his side of the family.
       In a last minute information filed on December 2, 2021, the
Department reported that minor had missed a scheduled DNA
test due to illness, and the Department had been unable to
contact M.S. to provide him with the needed information. M.S.
acknowledges in his opening brief that paternity testing was not
conducted during the dependency case.

                                3
      After sustaining the petition allegations, the court ordered
minor removed from parental custody, and denied reunification
services for M.S. under section 361.5, subdivision (a).
Reunification services for mother were denied under section
361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11), and (13).
      After a number of continuances, the juvenile court
conducted a hearing under section 366.26, with M.S. present.
Over M.S.’s general objection, the court terminated parental
rights as to minor. M.S. appealed.

                          DISCUSSION

       “[I]n California an alleged father may acknowledge or
establish paternity by voluntarily signing a declaration of
paternity at the time of the child’s birth, for filing with the birth
certificate (Fam. Code, § 7571, subd. (a)), or through blood testing
(Fam. Code, § 7551).” (In re Daniel M. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th
703, 708–709, fn. omitted.) “ ‘[T]o have standing to appeal, a
person generally must be both a party of record and sufficiently
“aggrieved” by the judgment or order.’ [Citation.] An alleged
father who has not acknowledged or established he is a parent
within the meaning of title 25 United States Code section 1903(9)
lacks standing to challenge a violation of the ICWA notice
provisions.” (Id. at p. 709.)
       Here, M.S. is not named on the child’s birth certificate.
Further, although he requested a paternity test, he failed to
appear for the test and made no further efforts to change his
parental status beyond that of an alleged father. He therefore

                                  4
lacks standing to challenge any purported violation of the ICWA
provisions. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                       MOOR, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     BAKER, J.

                               5