Court Opinion

ID: 9912182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 19:02:49.003621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:53.819998
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/21/23 In re Emily R. CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 In re EMILY R., a Person Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 HUMBOLDT COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     A167608
 v.
 NAKIA C.,                                                               (Humboldt County
           Defendant and Respondent;                                     Super. Ct. No. JV2000079)

 EMILY R., a Minor, etc.,
           Appellant.

         Minor, Emily R., appeals from the juvenile court’s order selecting legal
guardianship as Emily R.’s permanent plan based on application of the
parental benefit exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).1 Minor also contends the Humboldt County
Department of Health and Human Services (Department) failed to comply
with the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)

         1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

unless otherwise stated.

                                                               1
and related California law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.). The
Department concedes the evidence in the record lacks support for the trial
court’s finding that ICWA does not apply, and the Department states its
intention to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice requirements in the
ongoing dependency proceeding. We affirm.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Section 300 Petition
      On June 2, 2020, the Department filed a dependency petition alleging
that Emily R., who was then five years old, came within the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court under subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) of section 300. The
petition alleged that on May 31, 2020, mother was arrested for driving under
the influence of alcohol and for child endangerment. Emily was in the car at
the time of mother’s arrest. The petition further alleged that mother had a
history of substance abuse, including alcohol and methamphetamine, which
previously interfered with her ability to provide regular care for her older
children, and that her decision to drive under the influence with Emily in the
car put the minor at serious risk of physical harm.
      On June 3, 2020, the juvenile court detained Emily, and she was placed
in the care of her paternal aunt. The Department’s July 15, 2020 jurisdiction
report summarized 18 prior referrals regarding mother, alleging general
neglect, physical abuse and caretaker absence. The Department also
reported on mother’s criminal history, including multiple arrests for reckless
driving, driving without a license, driving under the influence, drug
possession and probation violations.2 It further summarized the factual

      2 Mother reported that Emily’s father was Aaron R.    The Department
reported that father had multiple prior felony convictions and was currently
incarcerated in Oregon and would not be released until at least March 2035.
Father is not a party to this appeal.

                                       2
allegations of the May 31, 2020 driving under the influence incident and
mother’s statement to the social worker that she “ ‘made a big mistake’ . . . .”
Mother did not attend the July 15, 2020, jurisdiction hearing, but her counsel
informed the juvenile court that she had enrolled in the Alcohol and Other
Drugs (AOD) program and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). The juvenile court
sustained the petition and found Emily to be a person described by section
300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1).
      The Department’s August 13, 2020 disposition report recommended
that Emily be declared a dependent of the court and that mother be offered
reunification services. The Department reported that mother visited Emily
virtually and in person and called Emily twice a day to help her adjust to
living with her aunt. The visits went well, and the Department stated
mother and Emily were “very close to each other,” “communicate[d] with each
other and [were] affectionate.”
      The juvenile court declared Emily a dependent of the court and ordered
her removed from parental custody. It also ordered reunification services for
mother.
II.   Six-month Review Hearing
      The Department’s February 16, 2021, status review report stated Emily
was a happy, energetic child with no major health issues and was
developmentally on track. She did not display any behaviors indicating a
need for counseling. Mother visited Emily consistently from August 2020 to
October 2020 and interacted well with her. In October 2020, visitation was
modified to unsupervised. Mother returned Emily late after visits and in
clothes that did not fit. Mother also struggled to obtain a reliable driver for
the visits. The paternal aunt told the Department that Emily said mother
drove during visits and that mother had been in verbal arguments with

                                        3
another adult in front of Emily. This made Emily sad. The Department
returned to supervised visitation.
       Initially, mother adequately participated in the services in her case
plan, but later her attendance became inconsistent. In December 2020, she
tested positive for methamphetamine. She also failed to participate in the
recommended parenting program and did not obtain a mental health
assessment.
       At the six-month review hearing on February 16, 2021, the juvenile
court found mother made minimal to no progress in her case plan and
continued reunification services.
III.   Twelve-month Review Hearing
       In advance of the 12-month review hearing, the Department reported
that mother struggled to maintain her sobriety. In May 2021, mother
obtained a mental health evaluation recommending that she take medication,
but the medication made her tired and she stopped taking it. During this
period, mother was arrested three times: for public intoxication in March
2021, for public intoxication and possession of a controlled substance in April
2021, and for felony and misdemeanor warrants in June 2021. She also
failed to participate in the agreed upon parenting education program.
       Emily remained with her paternal aunt. The minor began receiving
weekly counseling services to address appropriate social boundaries and
appropriate communication of emotions.
       Supervised visitation continued; however, mother missed
approximately 16 of 33 scheduled visits. The visitation log the Department
attached to its report indicated that many of the missed visits were due to
illness of either mother or Emily or because the visitation supervisor was not
available. The Department reported that Emily looked forward to the visits

                                        4
and always appeared happy to see mother. Mother and Emily told each other
they love one another.
      The Department recommended that the juvenile court terminate
reunification services, due to mother’s lack of engagement, and set a section
366.26 hearing. However, it also stated it would support additional services
if mother agreed to participate in an inpatient treatment program. Mother
requested a contested 12-month review hearing and asked for additional time
to engage in reunification services.
      The juvenile court held a contested review hearing on August 11, 2021,
at which mother and the Department’s social worker testified.3 The juvenile
court found that mother made adequate progress on her case plan and that
she “consistently and regularly contacted and visited the child . . . .” It
ordered continued reunification services.
IV.   Eighteen-month Review
      The Department reported that mother initially struggled during this
period. She was incarcerated for 17 days in August and September 2021,
causing her to miss four consecutive visits.4 Visitation was suspended.
Following her release from jail, mother entered a 30-day inpatient treatment
program for substance abuse, anger management and mental health
treatment, and then moved to a sober living home. She attended individual
therapy and NA. However, she did not complete the recommended parenting
program.

      3 The reporter’s transcript from this hearing is not part of the appellate

record. The juvenile court’s minute order states testimony was received from
mother and the Department’s social worker.
      4 It is unclear what led to mother’s incarceration, but the Department’s

report states she was convicted on September 8, 2021, of violating a court
order to prevent domestic violence. (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a).)

                                        5
      Once mother entered the inpatient treatment program, she consistently
visited Emily on the weekends. When she moved into the sober living
facility, mother continued supervised visits with Emily twice a week for two
hours at a time. Emily’s paternal aunt reported some regression in Emily’s
behavior after visits.
      The Department reported that Emily was doing well in school and was
continuing with counseling. At the beginning of the school year, Emily
expressed that she missed people in her life, including her mother.
      At the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court agreed with the
Department’s recommendation to extend reunification services.
V.    Twenty-four-month Review
      The Department reported that mother moved out of the sober living
home in February 2022 and into a motel room provided to her through a
housing assistance program. Mother had extended visits with Emily while
living at the motel. While Emily was in mother’s care, she was frequently
late to summer school or did not attend. When mother returned Emily to her
paternal aunt, Emily often did not have all of her belongings. Mother’s
behavior began to deteriorate during this period, and she said she was
depressed. Mother was asked to leave the motel due to poor interactions and
behavior.
      On August 13, 2022, while Emily was in mother’s care, mother was
accused of stealing someone’s truck. Emily did not feel safe and asked
someone to call her paternal aunt, who came to pick her up. The paternal
aunt reported that mother appeared visibly intoxicated and that Emily said
mother left her alone in the motel room. Mother provided a variety of
inconsistent and confusing explanations about the incident. Emily also
reported to the social worker that mother sometimes left her alone at the

                                      6
motel, mother gave Emily a pocket knife, mother smoked cigarettes often,
and mother bought “adult” beverages. The paternal aunt reported that Emily
mentioned a gun mother put on her nightstand. Mother told the social
worker that she gave Emily a small pocketknife to use to cut flowers and that
she only left Emily alone to go outside to smoke cigarettes. Regarding the
gun, mother said, “It’s a plastic gun.”
      The Department attached a letter from a social worker at Emily’s
school which stated that Emily was late or missed summer school when she
was in mother’s care. When Emily did come to school while she was in
mother’s care, the school staff observed that she often did not have her
backpack; was hungry; was dressed inappropriately for the weather; and was
tired, more emotional, and less engaged.
      The Department noted the relationship between mother and Emily but
concluded that after 28 months of reunification services, it continued to have
significant concerns about mother’s ability to adequately care for Emily. The
Department recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification
services, set a section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights, and
consider adoption by the paternal aunt as Emily’s permanent plan.
      On November 16, 2022, following a contested 24-month review
hearing,5 the juvenile court issued its ruling terminating reunification
services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court found that
mother made minimal progress overall and that while mother and Emily
enjoyed many visits, mother’s lack of consistency had negative effects on
Emily. The juvenile court granted de facto parent status to the paternal aunt

      5 The reporter’s transcript of the November 9, 2022, 24-month review

hearing is not part of the appellate record. The minute order indicates that
there was testimony from the social worker, the paternal aunt, and mother.

                                          7
and identified adoption by the paternal aunt as the proposed permanent
plan.
VI.     Combined Section 366.26 and Section 388 Hearing
        On February 15, 2023, mother filed a section 388 petition based on
change of circumstances alleging that she was on psychotropic medication
and was receiving treatment in a dual recovery program. She was testing
negative for drugs and alcohol, had obtained employment, had had no police
contact, was continuing individual therapy, and completed a parenting
program. She further alleged she had maintained consistent positive
visitation with Emily, and mother believed Emily wanted to return to her
care. Mother requested either that Emily be returned to her care or that
mother be given another six months of reunification services and that the
366.26 hearing be vacated. Mother’s petition attached a letter from mother’s
mental health therapist stating that mother had bipolar disorder and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Mother’s therapist further stated that mother
had made significant progress since she began taking medication. Mother’s
therapist had observed mother’s supervised visit with Emily and found that
they had “a very close bond . . . .” The therapist stated that Emily stayed
close to mother during the visit, which the therapist believed indicated Emily
feels safe with mother and experiences loss when she must leave mother.
        The Department submitted reports acknowledging that mother had
made positive progress in the prior two months. It also reported on the
positive visits6 between mother and Emily, the bond between them, and their

        6 The Department reported that between October 2022 and February

2023, mother attended 12 of 18 visits. The Department’s visitation log
indicates that four visits were canceled by mother. Several other visits were
canceled because they fell on a holiday. The visit supervisor described the
visits as positive and mother as attentive and engaged. During one visit,

                                        8
stated love for one another. However, given mother’s history of unstable
behavior, the Department continued to believe that adoption was in Emily’s
best interest. The Department reported that although mother’s relationship
with Emily was close, it was “not consistent and stable such that it outweighs
the benefit of stability and permanence that adoption would provide . . . .”
Emily had formed a strong attachment to her paternal aunt, with whom she
had lived for two and a half years, and the paternal aunt was willing to adopt
Emily.
      On March 15, 2023, the juvenile court held a combined section 366.26
and section 388 hearing. Mother testified about her recent progress in
managing her bipolar disorder and substance abuse issues. She further
testified about how excited Emily was to see her during their visits. Emily
would run and jump on mother. At the end of some visits, Emily complained
of a stomach ache, which mother believed was because Emily was upset.
Mother believed Emily was “panicking” about adoption and that she wanted
to be with Mother. Mother believed that she and Emily had a strong bond
and that it would not be healthy for Emily if mother were cut out of Emily’s
life. Mother was concerned that if the paternal aunt adopted Emily, mother
would not be permitted to visit Emily.
      The Department social worker testified that mother had a pattern of
doing well for a period and then regressing. The social worker continued to
believe that adoption was in Emily’s best interests because it is the most
permanent plan for her. The paternal aunt was open to future visitation

mother was described as very emotional after Emily left. During two of the
visits, Emily complained of not feeling well.

                                         9
between mother and Emily, but she did not want to supervise the visits
herself.7
      The juvenile court heard closing arguments from counsel and then
denied mother’s section 388 petition. However, the court found that it would
“be in Emily’s best interests that the Court proceed with the less permanent
plan of legal guardianship, instead of adoption for Emily. I think that
termination of Mother’s parental rights would not be appropriate at this
time, given the obvious loving relationship between Emily and . . . her
mother . . . .” The juvenile court continued the section 366.26 hearing for
entry of the findings and orders.
      On April 10, 2023, at the continued section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile
court entered a permanent plan of legal guardianship for Emily. The
paternal aunt was appointed guardian. It further ordered supervised
visitation between mother and Emily once a month, for four hours. The
juvenile court scheduled a six-month postpermanency review hearing and
ordered that dependency jurisdiction was not terminated.
                                DISCUSSION
I.    Selection of Legal Guardianship
      Minor asserts that the juvenile court erred when it selected legal
guardianship as her permanent plan over the statutorily preferred option of
adoption. (§ 366.26.) She argues the juvenile court erroneously applied the
parental benefit exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The Department,
which recommend termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of
adoption, submitted a respondent’s brief stating it does not oppose reversal of
the juvenile court’s order selecting legal guardianship. Mother argues the

      7 According to the Department, mother and the paternal aunt did not

have a good relationship due to mother’s behavior toward the paternal aunt.

                                      10
juvenile court properly applied the parental benefit exception and that its
order should be affirmed.
      A.     Legal Framework
      At a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court selects a permanency
plan for the dependent child. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) At this stage of the
proceedings, if the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
the child is likely to be adopted, “the court shall terminate parental rights
and order the child placed for adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) However,
section 366.26, subdivision (c) provides certain enumerated exceptions which
permit the juvenile court, “ ‘in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose
an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.’ ” (In re Caden C.
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 631 (Caden C.).) The exception relevant here is the
parental benefit exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) To prove this
exception applies, the parent must establish “(1) regular visitation and
contact, (2) a relationship, the continuance of which would benefit the child
such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the
child.” (Caden C., at p. 631.) As to the first element, the juvenile court
considers whether the parent visits consistently, “taking into account ‘the
extent permitted by court orders.’ ” (Id. at p. 632.) As to the second element,
the court assesses whether the child has a “substantial, positive, emotional
attachment to the parent . . . .” (Id. at p. 636.) In making this determination,
the proper focus is on the child, and the court may consider factors such as
“ ‘[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s
custody, the “positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between parent and
child, and the child’s particular needs.’ ” (Id. at p. 632.)
      Regarding the third element, the juvenile court decides “whether the
harm of severing the parental relationship outweighs ‘the security and the

                                         11
sense of belonging a new family would confer.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th
at p. 633.) As explained by the Supreme Court, the juvenile court is not
comparing the parent’s attributes as custodial caregiver to those of the
potential adoptive parents. Instead, “the question is just whether losing the
relationship with the parent would harm the child to an extent not
outweighed, on balance, by the security of a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p.
634.)
        B.    Standard of Review
        Caden C., supra, clarified that determinations regarding the parental
benefit exception are reviewed under a hybrid standard of review. (11
Cal.5th at pp. 639–640.) As to the first two elements, which are factual
determinations, the reviewing court applies a substantial evidence standard
of review. (Ibid.) The third element—whether termination of parental rights
would be detrimental to the child—is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id. at
pp. 640–641.) An abuse of discretion occurs only when “ ‘ “ ‘the trial court has
exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd determination.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 641.) If two or more inferences
can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court may not
substitute its judgment as to what is in the child’s best interests. (Ibid.)
        C.    Analysis
              1.    Consistent Visitation
        The first element of the parental benefit exception is whether the
parent maintained “regular visitation and contact” with the child (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)), “taking into account ‘the extent [of visitation] permitted by
court orders.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) This is a factual
finding that we review for substantial evidence. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th
at p. 640.) Emily argues substantial evidence does not support a finding that

                                        12
mother regularly and consistently visited her. She cites to multiple reports
filed by the Department, beginning in July 2021, listing how many visits
mother missed during several review periods. She also cites to a statement
made by counsel for the paternal aunt at the April 10, 2023, continued
section 366.26 hearing that counsel understood mother missed most of the
nightly calls with Emily.
      The Department’s reports explain mother’s struggles to maintain her
sobriety and to manage her mental health issues. They also report on
mother’s frequent arrests and that she was incarcerated for 17 days in
August and September 2021. There were periods when mother’s visitation
was supervised and then suspended. There were other periods when mother
was given extended unsupervised visitation. Several of the Department’s
reports also state that mother had frequent telephone calls with minor.
Throughout the nearly three-year period of this proceeding, there were
missed telephone calls and missed visits.8 However, the Department’s
visitation logs provide context for many of the cancelations, including illness
of either mother or minor and that some of the scheduled visits fell on
holidays. The visitation logs also summarize numerous, frequent visits
during which mother and Emily had positive engagements.
      From June to August 2020, the Department reported mother had
monitored virtual and in-person visitation as well as daily telephone calls.
From August 2020 to October 2020, mother’s visitation continued to be
consistent. Beginning in October 2020, when mother’s visitation was
liberalized, she initially struggled to identify a transportation plan for visits,

      8 Minor’s reliance on the unsworn statement by counsel for the paternal

aunt regarding counsel’s understanding that the daily phone calls were not
happening does not support reversal. (In re Zeth (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413,
fn. 11 [“unsworn statements of counsel are not evidence”].)

                                        13
but the Department reported that after a couple of weeks, the issues
subsided. From March 2021 to August 2021, mother’s visitation was fairly
inconsistent, and the Department temporarily suspended visitation in August
2021 after mother missed four consecutive visits. In September 2021, mother
contacted the Department to apologize for her behavior and explain that she
had been in jail for 17 days. Thereafter, mother’s visitation became more
consistent and included unsupervised extended visitation. Between
November 16, 2022, and the section 366.26 hearing in March 2023, mother
continued to visit Emily weekly and canceled only one visit. As the
Department noted in its section 366.26 report, throughout the dependency
proceeding, Emily maintained contact with mother. On this record, we find
there is substantial evidence that mother maintained regular visitation and
contact with minor.
            2.     Benefit of Relationship
      The second element of the parental benefit exception is whether the
child would benefit from a continuing relationship with the parent. (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The juvenile court must assess whether the child has a
“substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent . . . .” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.) The focus is on the child, and the “relationship
may be shaped by a slew of factors, such as ‘[t]he age of the child, the portion
of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the “positive” or “negative”
effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular
needs.’ ” (Id. at p. 632.) The juvenile court found legal guardianship to be in
Emily’s best interest based on the “obvious loving relationship between Emily
and . . . her mother . . . .” Emily argues that there is no substantial evidence
that she would benefit from a continuing relationship with mother. She
highlights the Department’s reports of mother’s inappropriate behavior

                                        14
during some visits, including mother’s discussing the case with Emily, and
mother’s altercations with other adults while Emily was in her care. Emily
also cites to the Department’s reports regarding the August to September
2022 period, when Emily’s school social worker reported that Emily’s mental
health declined when she anticipated being in mother’s care or had been in
mother’s care, and that Emily told her school counselor that she did not feel
safe with mother. However, even Emily acknowledges statements in the
Department’s reports that she looked forward to visits with mother, that she
responded positively to mother when mother was not exhibiting concerning
behavior, and that she and mother had a close and loving relationship. Emily
also acknowledges that mother’s therapist submitted a letter to the
Department stating she had supervised a visit and observed a very close bond
between mother and Emily.
      The evidence in the record is mixed; however, on review, we are not to
reweigh the evidence. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) We find
sufficient evidence of a beneficial relationship between Emily and mother.
Emily, who was five years old when she was removed from mother’s care, had
consistent contact with mother throughout the nearly three years of the
dependency proceeding. The record includes statements from mother’s
therapist that Emily had a “strong connection to her mother . . . .” At the
section 366.26 hearing, mother testified that Emily was happy and excited to
see her and that they had a strong bond. Mother did not believe it would be
healthy for Emily if their relationship were discontinued. The juvenile court
was entitled to credit this testimony. (See In re Brandon C. (1999) 71
Cal.App.4th 1530, 1537–1538 [affirming legal guardianship order applying
parental benefit exception based on testimony from mother and grandmother
of strong bond between mother and children].)

                                      15
            3.    Detriment/Benefit Balance
      The third element of the parental benefit exception requires the
juvenile court to determine “whether losing the relationship with the parent
would harm the child to an extent not outweighed, on balance, by the security
of a new, adoptive home.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 634.) When a
juvenile court determines whether termination would be detrimental to a
child, “the court is not comparing the parent’s attributes as custodial
caregiver relative to those of any potential adoptive parent.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 634.) Rather, the juvenile court “must . . . engage in a
delicate balancing . . . that weigh[s] the harm of losing the relationship
against the benefits of placement in a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 640.)
We review the juvenile court’s determination for abuse of discretion. (Id. at
p. 641.) Under this highly deferential standard, we may not substitute our
own judgment about what is in the child’s best interests for the juvenile
court’s determination. (Ibid.)
      In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the Department social worker
reported that although the relationship between mother and Emily was close,
it did not outweigh the benefits of stability and permanence that adoption
would provide. However, at the hearing, mother testified to the contrary.
The Department social worker testified that he continued to recommend
adoption as being in Emily’s best interests because it was permanent. He
was not asked about whether Emily would suffer detriment from losing her
relationship with mother. Nor did either party offer any other testimony on
this issue. Thus, the juvenile court was tasked with making its
determination based on the information in the Department’s reports and
mother’s testimony that Emily would suffer if she were to lose her
relationship with mother. As discussed ante, there was substantial evidence

                                       16
that the relationship between mother and Emily was positive and loving.
The juvenile court acted within its discretion in balancing the detriment to
Emily of losing her relationship with mother against the benefits of adoption
and finding that legal guardianship with in Emily’s best interests.
II.   ICWA
      At the June 3, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile court found that
ICWA did not apply based on mother’s statement to the social worker that
she did not have Native American ancestry. The Department also reported
that Emily’s alleged father denied Native American ancestry.
      Over two years later, on October 12, 2022, the Department reported
that mother said she had “ancestry through the Northern Michigan by the
Great Lakes tribe called Algonquian.” (Sic.) Mother said she was not
enrolled and that she had difficulty tracing her heritage. The Department
reported that through its research it found a Canadian Algonquian tribe. It
further reported that Emily’s maternal grandmother said there might be
Cherokee ancestry, but she did not know from which state and she had never
been on a Cherokee roll. The Department stated that there was insufficient
information to indicate that ICWA applies but that it was continuing to
research the issue.
      On January 26, 2023, the Department filed Judicial Council Forms,
form ICWA-030 (Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child),
providing notice of the section 366.26 hearing scheduled for March 15, 2023.
The notice was served on the Sacramento Area Director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. It provided Emily’s name, birth date, and place of birth, and
the names, current addresses, and birth dates of mother, biological father,
and maternal grandmother. The notice did not identify any tribes.

                                      17
      On March 15, 2023, the Department filed its section 366.26 report. The
ICWA section of the report stated that although mother mentioned she might
be Algonquian, there is no Algonquian tribe in the United States. The report
did not mention possible Cherokee ancestry. The Department further
reported that it sent notice of the hearing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
it attached the Bureau’s response, which stated that no information was
provided regarding Emily’s ancestry with a federally recognized Indian tribe.
The Department asked the juvenile court to continue to find that ICWA does
not apply.
      ICWA was not mentioned during the March 15, 2023, or April 10, 2023,
section 366.26 hearings. The juvenile court’s order following the hearing
states that it previously found, on June 3, 2020, that ICWA does not apply
and that no new information has been received regarding Indian ancestry.
      Emily claims the Department failed to comply with ICWA. She seeks a
conditional affirmance and a remand for an ICWA hearing. Emily asserts
that because she is seeking a conditional affirmance, she does not need to
show prejudice. Emily’s opening brief provides a general discussion of the
duties of the Department and the juvenile court under ICWA and related
state statutes. However, it is less clear regarding the Department and the
juvenile court’s alleged noncompliance. She appears to assert that the
Department’s notices sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not provide
specific information regarding potential tribal affiliations.
      The Department acknowledges that the record lacks sufficient
documentary evidence to support a finding that ICWA does not apply. It
states it will review the case file to identify and cure any defects relating to
ICWA compliance, including alleged defects identified in Emily’s opening

                                        18
brief. Mother’s respondent’s brief states mother takes no position regarding
Emily’s ICWA argument.
       The juvenile court did not terminate parental rights; nor did it
terminate dependency jurisdiction. The Department recognizes its
continuing duties under ICWA. (In re S.H. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 166, 174
[juvenile court and county have affirmative and continuing duty to determine
whether ICWA applies].) Under these circumstances, we find no reason to
conditionally affirm or conditionally reverse the juvenile court’s order. (Id. at
p. 179 [“So long as proceedings are ongoing and all parties recognize the
continuing duty of ICWA inquiry, both the Agency and the juvenile court
have an adequate opportunity to fulfill those statutory duties”].)9
                                    DISPOSITION
       The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

                                                 Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Simons, J.
Burns, J.

A167608/Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services v. Nakia C.

       9 We further note that the juvenile court’s guardianship order places

Emily with her paternal aunt. ICWA’s first placement preference for
dependent children is with a member of the child’s extended family. (25
U.S.C. § 1915(a).) Accordingly, it appears that any alleged failure to comply
with ICWA and related state statutes was not prejudicial. (In re J.W. (2022)
81 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.)

                                            19