Court Opinion

ID: 9865591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:04:30.434525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:31.060854
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 In re A.N. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.N., a Person Coming                                          2d Juv. No. B326268
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                   (Super. Ct. No. 21JD-00029-001)
                                                                   (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY F. et al.,

     Defendants and Appellants.

       Ana N. (Mother) and Anthony F. (Father) appeal an order
of the juvenile court declaring that their minor child A.N. is
adoptable and terminating their parental rights. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)1 We conclude that failure to make
inquiries of extended family members pursuant to the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and
related California law was error, and we conditionally reverse for
a limited remand. (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735,
744.)
       This appeal concerns the single issue of the adequacy of
inquiries regarding possible Indian ancestry of a dependent
minor child. The San Luis Obispo County Department of Social
Services (DSS) requests that we take judicial notice of, or
augment the appellate record with: 1) an ICWA due diligence
report dated October 20, 2021, and a juvenile court order dated
November 3, 2021, filed in a companion dependency proceeding
involving A.N.’s full-blood newborn sibling (In re A.F., case No.
21JD-00115-001); and 2) a newly filed report dated July 18, 2023,
in this dependency proceeding regarding additional inquiries of
family members involving possible Indian ancestry. We grant
judicial notice of the report and order filed in the companion
dependency proceeding and augment the record to include DSS’s
additional inquiries in this proceeding. (In re Allison B. (2022) 79
Cal.App.5th 214, 219.)
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Mother and Father are parents to minor children A.N. and
a newborn. The newborn was removed from the parents’ custody
and care at birth and is the subject of a later and separate
dependency proceeding.
       On March 15, 2021, Paso Robles police officers found
Mother, Father, and A.N. inside a cluttered vehicle parked at a

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

                                 2
fast-food restaurant. The officers discovered heroin, fentanyl,
hypodermic needles, and methamphetamine paraphernalia
containing drug residue inside the vehicle. The parents, who had
a history of domestic violence incidents, were arrested for being
under the influence of drugs and possession of drugs, among
other charges. A laboratory test performed the following day
revealed three-year-old A.N. was positive for fentanyl and
methamphetamine.
       On March 19, 2021, DSS filed a dependency petition and
later an amended dependency petition alleging that Mother and
Father suffered from substance abuse and had a history of
domestic violence. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) On March 22, 2021, the
juvenile court ordered that A.N. be detained and that Mother and
Father be provided with supervised visitation.
       On May 12, 2021, the juvenile court held a combined
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court sustained the
allegations of the jurisdiction petition and declared A.N. a
dependent of the court. It removed A.N. from her parents’
custody and ordered that the parents be provided with family
reunification services, including counseling, mental health
services, drug and alcohol treatment, parent education, and
supervised visitation. The court’s written disposition findings
state that the DSS social worker questioned the parents and the
maternal aunt with whom A.N. was then placed regarding Indian
ancestry and that there was no reason to know that A.N. was an
Indian child.
       On October 20, 2021, the juvenile court held a six-month
review hearing. Neither parent appeared at the hearing. The
parents also were not participating in drug and alcohol
assessment and treatment. On the recommendation of DSS, the

                                3
court continued family reunification services and set a 12-month
review hearing.
       At the time of the 12-month review hearing, Mother and
Father had been arrested and were in custody at county jail.
DSS filed a 12-month review report stating that Mother and
Father had not complied with their reunification services plan
and had not visited A.N. DSS recommended that the juvenile
court terminate reunification services and set a permanent plan
hearing. The court continued the review hearing for two months,
however, given Mother’s and Father’s current jail custody.
       On May 9, 2022, the juvenile court held the continued 12-
month review hearing. Mother did not appear; Mother’s counsel
had lost contact with her. Father remained in jail custody but
appeared by Zoom video. The court adopted DSS’s
recommendation and terminated reunification services and set a
permanent plan hearing.
       On January 11, 2023, the juvenile court held a contested
permanent plan hearing and also considered Father’s recently
filed modification petition. (§ 388.) Mother did not appear at the
hearing but was represented by counsel; Father appeared by
Zoom video. Father requested the reinstatement of reunification
services and testified that he was participating in drug
rehabilitation, living in a sober living home, and seeking
employment, among other things. Father also described his
parental bond with A.N. The court found Father’s nascent
rehabilitative efforts commendable but decided that he could not
make “sufficient progress for reunification in a short time frame.”
The court then denied Father’s modification petition, terminated
Mother’s and Father’s parental rights, and determined adoption
as the permanent plan for A.N.

                                 4
                           ICWA Inquiries
       At the time of A.N.’s detention, the DSS social worker
inquired of Mother concerning the possibility of A.N.’s Indian
ancestry. Mother denied knowledge of any Indian ancestry. DSS
attached an ICWA-010 form to the dependency petition reflecting
this information. At the detention hearing, Mother’s counsel
informed the juvenile court that “[M]other denies any Indian
ancestry. She’s not a member or eligible for membership in any
federally recognized tribe, nor is her child, nor are her parents,
grandparents, or other lineal ancestors. She’s not a resident or
domiciled on a reservation, nor is her child.”
       Also at the detention hearing, Father’s counsel stated: “In
regards to ICWA, I reviewed the ICWA-020 form and all of
[Father’s] answers to those questions are no.” The juvenile court
then made a finding that ICWA did not apply absent new
information of possible Indian ancestry.
       On April 21, 2021, DSS inquired of the maternal aunt in
whose care A.N. was placed regarding any Indian ancestry. She
denied any knowledge of Indian ancestry and DSS filed an
ICWA-010(A) form with the juvenile court. Later, A.N. was
placed in the care of a maternal uncle and his wife, who were also
caring for the newborn sibling. The maternal uncle and his wife
denied any Indian ancestry when questioned in the juvenile
court.
       The July 18, 2023, ICWA compliance report contained in
the augmented appellate record states that DSS has made ICWA
inquiries of A.N.’s Mother, maternal grandmother, maternal
grandfather, maternal great-grandmother, maternal aunt, and
two maternal cousins concerning possible Indian ancestry. DSS
also inquired of Father and paternal great-grandmother.

                                5
Paternal grandmother is deceased and DSS was unable to contact
paternal grandfather. The inquiries produced no reasons to
believe or know that A.N. is an Indian child. The ICWA
compliance report, however, stated that DSS would continue to
locate and then question the paternal grandfather and a
maternal first cousin. DSS described the paternal grandfather
and a maternal first cousin once removed as “persons of interest”
that DSS had not yet contacted.
       Mother and Father appeal and contend that the juvenile
court prejudicially erred by finding that ICWA was not applicable
because DSS and the court did not fully comply with their initial
duties of inquiry regarding Indian ancestry. (§§ 224.2, subd. (b),
224.)
                           DISCUSSION
       Mother and Father argue that insufficient evidence
supports the juvenile court’s ICWA finding because the court and
DSS did not question extended family members concerning
possible Indian ancestry. They assert that the failure compels
reversal of the section 366.26 order to ensure compliance with the
initial and continuing inquiry requirements of ICWA and related
California law.
       We examine the juvenile court’s ICWA findings for
substantial evidence. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438.)
Where the inquiry was deficient, we assess whether the juvenile
court would have made the same ICWA finding had the inquiry
been adequate.
       An “Indian child” is defined as an unmarried individual
under 18 years of age who is either 1) a member of a federally
recognized Indian tribe, or 2) is eligible for membership in a
federally recognized tribe and is the biological child of a member

                                6
of a federally recognized tribe. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) & (8); § 224.2,
subd. (e)(1).) The juvenile court, the county child welfare
department, and the probation department have affirmative and
continuing duties to inquire whether a child subject to
dependency proceedings is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2,
subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.481(a) & 5.668(c).) The
duties include asking 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, subd. (b); In re
E.L. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 597, 607, review granted Nov. 30,
2022, No. S276508.)
       Mother and Father object to DSS’s request for judicial
notice of the DSS report and juvenile court order in the newborn
sibling’s dependency proceeding and the augmentation of the
record here to reflect that DSS filed a post-judgment report with
the court identifying the same family members questioned in
A.N.’s proceeding.
       “When . . . postjudgment evidence is offered to an appellate
court in support of a motion to dismiss a juvenile dependency
appeal, it is ‘routinely consider[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., supra, 79
Cal.App.5th 214, 219.) This supports what we said in E.L.,
“Remand would unnecessarily delay the likelihood of adoption of
the children and would achieve the same result we do here.” (In
re E.L., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th 597, 608.)
       Here DSS inquired of Mother and Father as well as seven
maternal relatives and one paternal relative. DSS recognized,
however, that there remained two “persons of interest,” including

                                 7
the paternal grandfather. DSS stated that it would continue its
efforts to contact these two relatives regarding any Indian
ancestry. The limited remand here allows DSS to accomplish this
task and report the result of its inquiries to the juvenile court.
This will have the beneficial consequence of expediting the
proceeding and promoting the finality of the court’s orders and
judgment. (In re Allison B., supra, 79 Cal.App.5th 214, 219.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The order terminating parental rights is conditionally
reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with
directions to comply with the inquiry provisions of ICWA and
sections 224.2 and 224.3. Following the inquiry, if neither DSS
nor the court has reason to believe or to know that the minor
child is an Indian child, the order terminating parental rights
shall be reinstated.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

      BALTODANO, J.

      CODY, J.

                                8
                    Gayle L. Peron, Judge

           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

               ______________________________

      Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant Anthony F.
      Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant Ana N.
      Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, and Ann Duggan, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              9