Court Opinion

ID: 9392615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 17:04:05.586941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.005283
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/5/23 In re R.Z. CA4/2

                     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
                               publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

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

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            E080360

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. J286515)

 v.                                                                       OPINION

 D.G. et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant D.G.

         Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant V.Z.

                                                              1
       Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Kaleigh Ragon, Deputy County Counsel for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

       The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendants and appellants

V.Z. (Mother) and D.G. (Father) to their daughter, R.Z. (Minor).1 , 2 Father contends

there is an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) error because the record does not indicate

what, if any, information San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the

Department) shared with the Blackfeet Tribe when inquiring about Minor’s possible

Indian ancestry. Mother joins in Father’s contention. We affirm the order.

                                          FACTS

       The Department asked a friend of Father’s family (Friend) whether Father had

Native American ancestry. Friend then asked Minor’s paternal aunt (Aunt) whether

Father had Native American ancestry. Friend relayed to the Department that Aunt said,

“ ‘ “I think so, because [Father’s] grandfather . . . was almost 100% Blackfoot. He was

born in Alabama. His great-grandfather . . . was (almost) 100% Blackfoot. His wife . . .

was French and had No Native American Indian [sic] ancestry.” ’ ”

       The Department contacted Aunt directly and she “provided dates of birth and the

birth place [sic] for her father and the paternal great-grandfather, however [Aunt] was

unable to provide documentation or confirm . . . Native American Ancestry.”

       1   The juvenile court found Father is Minor’s biological father.

       2   Minor has a half brother who is not part of this appeal.

                                              2
       On September 29, 2022, the Department telephoned the Blackfeet Tribe 3 and

was informed that the Tribe required requests for membership information to be in

writing. The Department sent the Tribe an email and “a certified letter inquiring as to

tribal affiliation.” The certified letter was sent on October 3, 2022 “to The Blackfeet

Indian Reservation of Montana.” Neither the Department’s email nor letter to the

Blackfeet Tribe was part of the original record in this case. The October 3, 2022, letter

was added to the record after opening briefs were filed. In the letter, the Department

provided the names of Minor, Father, Aunt, Father’s father, and Father’s grandfather.

The Department also provided the birthdates for the foregoing people with the exception

of Father’s grandfather.

       By November 14, 2022, the Department had not received a response from the

Blackfeet Tribe. On December 9, 2022, the Department social worker “telephoned the

Blackfeet Tribe in Montana to inquire about enrollment/eligibility . . . . The first phone

number led to an answering machine, whose mailbox was full. The second number rang

many times with no answer and no mailbox/voicemail option. The [Department] has

not received any mail from the Blackfeet tribe.” On December 13, 2022, the juvenile

court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Minor.

       3  Aunt claimed Blackfoot heritage, but the Department contacted the Blackfeet
Tribe. We note that “there is frequently confusion between the Blackfeet tribe, which is
federally recognized, and the related Blackfoot tribe which is found in Canada and thus
not entitled to notice of dependency proceedings. When Blackfoot heritage is claimed,
part of the [a]gency’s duty of inquiry is to clarify whether the parent is actually claiming
Blackfoot or Blackfeet heritage so that it can discharge its additional duty to notice the
relevant tribes.” (In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198.)

                                             3
                                       DISCUSSION

       Father and Mother contend, “The silent record with respect to information that

should have been provided to the tribe . . . necessitates conditional reversal of the order

terminating parental rights.” After Father’s and Mother’s appellant’s opening briefs

were filed, the Department moved to augment the record with the previously omitted

October 3, 2022, letter that the Department sent to the Blackfeet Tribe inquiring about

Minor’s alleged Indian ancestry. This court granted the motion. Subsequently, Father

and Mother sent this court letters explaining that, upon reviewing the augmented record,

they would not be filing reply briefs. Given that the record is no longer silent on the

information the Department provided to the Blackfeet Tribe, we will affirm the order

terminating parental rights.

                                       DISPOSITION

       The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                        MILLER
                                                                                              J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                        Acting P. J.

MENETREZ
                                  J.

                                             4