Court Opinion

ID: 9947810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 18:04:36.330459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:37.669470
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/5/24 M.C. v. Superior Court CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                       THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

    M.C.,                                                                                      C099444

                    Petitioner,                                                  (Super. Ct. No. STK-JD-DP-
                                                                                       2020-0000422)
             v.

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN
    COUNTY,

                    Respondent;

    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
    AGENCY et al.,

                    Real Parties in Interest.

            Petitioner M.C., mother of the dependent minor A.C. (minor),1 seeks an
extraordinary writ to vacate orders of respondent juvenile court terminating her

1      Minor’s three siblings were also subjects of the dependency but are not parties to
this writ proceeding.

                                                             1
reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26.2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.)3 Petitioner contends that the inquiry
made by respondent juvenile court and the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency
(Agency) into minor’s potential Indian heritage was insufficient and failed to comply
with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We
issued a stay of the section 366.26 hearing in the respondent juvenile court pending
resolution of this writ petition and shall now issue a preemptory writ of mandate directing
the respondent juvenile court to vacate the ICWA findings and conduct further
proceedings to determine whether the ICWA inquiry and notice requirements have been
met.
       We dispense with a detailed recitation of the underlying facts as they are
unnecessary to our resolution of the issues. Instead, we discuss the relevant facts where
necessary in our discussion of the issues.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Petitioner contends further inquiry of relatives and extended family members
regarding minor’s potential Indian heritage is necessary to meet the requirements of the
ICWA. We agree.
       This dependency proceeding commenced in Los Angeles County in 2014. At that
time, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) social
worker completed Indian child inquiry forms (ICWA-010) indicating minor had no
known Indian ancestry. At the February 7, 2014, detention hearing, petitioner and
minor’s father F.C. (father) provided the court with parental notification of Indian status

2      Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3      Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

                                             2
forms (ICWA-020) indicating they had no known Indian heritage. Based on the parents’
representations, the Los Angeles County Superior Court found the ICWA did not apply.
       The March 2014 jurisdiction/disposition report filed by DCFS reflected that both
parents denied any Indian ancestry and reiterated the court’s prior finding of ICWA
inapplicability. Petitioner reported her mother (the maternal grandmother) died when she
was young, and she did not know the identity of her father (the maternal grandfather).
Petitioner also reported she was raised by the maternal great-grandmother and had no
known siblings. Father was reportedly in contact with his parents (the paternal
grandparents), who were not married but were both still alive. Father reported that when
the paternal grandmother lost custody of him as a young child, he went to live with
various relatives and then later with the paternal grandfather. Father reported he had 12
siblings, with only a few of whom he had contact. In a subsequent report, DCFS
identified two relatives: maternal great-aunt A.G. and paternal aunt M.M., with whom
minor and siblings were eventually placed. The record is devoid of any evidence that
DCFS attempted to locate additional relatives of the parents or inquired of the relatives it
had already identified, raising concern as to whether petitioner’s and father’s claims of no
Indian ancestry were fully informed.
       In October 2020, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued orders to transfer
the dependency matter to San Joaquin County. The transfer-out orders noted the 2014
finding that ICWA did not apply. By the time the case was transferred to respondent
juvenile court, the Legislature had made substantial amendments to several sections of
the Welfare and Institutions Code related to the ICWA, effective January 1, 2019.
(Assem. Bill No. 3176 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.); In re M.W. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1034,
1043.) Prior to the January 2019 amendments, the juvenile court and the agency had an
affirmative duty to inquire at the outset of the proceedings whether a child who is subject
to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (Former rule 5.481(a); former § 224.3,
subd. (a).) The January 2019 amendments increased the agency’s duty to look beyond

                                             3
the parents and interview extended family members, if known, concerning a minor’s
tribal membership status or eligibility. (§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (c); rule 5.481(a)(4).) It
does not appear that DCFS fulfilled those requirements after the January 2019
amendments but prior to transfer of the case.
       Once the case was transferred to San Joaquin County, the Agency’s reports
reiterated that there was no reason to believe minor was an Indian child and referenced
the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s 2014 finding. Yet, the Agency was aware of
two paternal relatives as evidenced by its February 2021 report stating father was living
with the paternal grandmother in Washington, and minor was still living with the paternal
aunt. The record does not suggest any inquiry of these relatives regarding application of
the ICWA.
       In August 2022, respondent juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing with
respect to minor’s sibling R.C., with whom minor shares both parents. At the December
2022 section 366.26 hearing, the court found the ICWA did not apply. Petitioner filed a
petition for extraordinary writ in sibling R.C.’s case raising the issue of insufficient
ICWA inquiry. In March 2023, in an unpublished opinion, this court issued a peremptory
writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its finding that the ICWA inquiry
and notice provisions were satisfied and that the ICWA does not apply, ordered the
Agency to conduct further inquiry regarding petitioner’s and father’s ancestry and make
reasonable efforts to inquire of the parents’ relatives, and enter updated ICWA findings
prior to proceeding with the section 366.26 hearing.
       The Agency’s June 2023 selection and implementation report reiterated the Los
Angeles County Superior Court’s 2014 finding that the ICWA does not apply and noted
father’s 2022 denial of Indian heritage. The Agency reported it acquired a “Lexus
Nexus” [sic] report that provided contact information for possible relatives of petitioner
and mailed ICWA-020 forms to those individuals, including a person named S.C. The
only response received by the Agency was from S.C., who stated he did not have any

                                              4
Indian ancestry. However, petitioner confirmed S.C. was not a family member. While
petitioner initially failed to answer ICWA inquiry, refused to sign an ICWA-020, and did
not provide any information to further the Agency’s investigation, upon further inquiry
she stated she did not have any Indian ancestry on her mother’s side as her parents and
grandparents were of Hispanic descent and were from Mexico. Petitioner stated she did
not have any information about her birth father or any of her paternal relatives. Petitioner
completed an ICWA-020 form stating, “Unknown unable to answer. Don’t know who
my father is.”
       The July 2023 status review report reflected no new ICWA inquiry by the Agency
and stated there was no reason to believe minor was an Indian child. Thereafter,
respondent juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing as to minor. Petitioner filed the
instant petition for extraordinary writ again raising the issue of insufficient ICWA inquiry.
       Petitioner does not claim prejudicial error stemming from inquiry, or lack thereof,
of any maternal extended family members. Instead, she claims the Agency had access to
paternal relatives, including the paternal grandparents, paternal aunts, and paternal
cousins, as well as minor’s adult siblings, and either did not inquire of those individuals
regarding Indian ancestry or did inquire but did not document such efforts. The Agency
asserts there was no error because father denied Indian ancestry, petitioner denied Indian
ancestry on her mother’s side but did not know the identity of her father, and the search
via “Lexus-Nexus” produced a report with contact information for possible maternal
relatives who either were not actual relatives or who did not respond to ICWA-020 forms
sent by the Agency. We do not agree.
       The Agency was aware of the existence and/or identity of several paternal
relatives, namely the paternal grandfather, the paternal grandmother, and father’s 12
siblings, including paternal aunt M.M. with whom minor was placed for a time. The
juvenile court and the social services department have an affirmative and continuing duty,
beginning at initial contact and continuing throughout the pendency of the proceedings, to

                                              5
inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child.
(Rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).) It does not appear the Agency made any attempt to
locate or speak with any of the known paternal relatives. While father denied Indian
ancestry, he was not raised by his parents and may not have been fully informed as to his
family’s ancestry. It was therefore crucial to obtain information from other paternal
relatives to determine whether minor was an Indian child.
       Recently, the California Supreme Court granted review in In re Dezi C. and we
anticipate further clarification on this issue. (In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769,
779-782, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578.) Until such time, we must apply the
analytical framework set forth by the California Supreme Court in In re A.R. for assessing
harm and conclude the failure to make any ICWA inquiry of other accessible paternal
relatives was not harmless. (In re A.R. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 234, 252-254.) Father may not
have had the usual access to family lineage information, and the intent underlying the
ICWA and related California law is to protect third party rights. Accordingly, we must
grant the petition to assure compliance with the ICWA.

                                             6
                                      DISPOSITION
       Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent juvenile court to (1)
vacate the finding that the ICWA inquiry and notice provisions were satisfied and that the
ICWA does not apply, and (2) order the Agency to conduct further inquiry, including of
available paternal relatives, and provide any new information to the relevant tribes, as
necessary. The respondent juvenile court is then directed to enter updated ICWA findings
prior to proceeding with a section 366.26 hearing. Having served its purpose, the stay
previously issued by this court on December 11, 2023, is vacated. This decision is final
forthwith as to this court. (Rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

                                                     /s/
                                                 EARL, P.J.

We concur:

    /s/
DUARTE, J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

                                             7