Court Opinion

ID: 9927061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 01:02:07.243947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.239781
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/24 In re K.B. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

                                                                  B329628
 In re K.B. et al., Persons Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00257A–B)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 Daniel M.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Jennifer Baronoff, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.
      Jack Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

       Daniel M. (father) appeals from a juvenile court order
terminating his parental rights. Father contends the juvenile
court erred in finding the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) conducted an adequate
inquiry to determine whether minors K.B. and A.M. are or may
be Indian children within the meaning of the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). Both parents
denied having any Indian ancestry, as did maternal and paternal
relatives who were interviewed. However, father argues DCFS’s
inquiry was not sufficiently diligent. We affirm the trial court
order.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In light of the limited issue raised on appeal, we only
briefly summarize the facts underlying the proceedings. In 2019,
the juvenile court sustained petitions alleging the parents’
domestic violence, mother’s mental and emotional problems, and
father’s substance abuse placed the children at substantial risk of
suffering serious physical harm. The court asserted dependency
jurisdiction over the children and removed them from the
parents’ custody. DCFS placed both children with the maternal
grandmother. In 2023, the court terminated parental rights. The
maternal grandmother is the prospective adoptive parent.

                                2
      ICWA Background
      In January 2019, in connection with the initial
investigation, mother told DCFS that K.B. had no Indian
ancestry. At subsequent hearings, both parents submitted
Parental Notification of Indian Status ICWA-020 forms
indicating they have no Indian ancestry as far as they know. In
April 2019, the juvenile court found it had no reason to know
K.B. is an Indian child, but ordered the parents to keep DCFS,
their attorneys, and the court aware of any new information
relating to possible ICWA status. DCFS detained A.M. soon after
he was born in May 2019. Both parents again denied having any
Indian ancestry, including in additional Parental Notification of
Indian Status forms. In June 2019, the juvenile court found it
had no reason to know A.M. is an Indian child.
      A June 2019 jurisdiction and disposition report indicated
mother was removed from her biological mother at an early age
and placed in the care of Barbara B. (referred to herein as
maternal grandmother), who eventually adopted her. The report
included only an approximate spelling of mother’s biological
mother’s surname. The maternal grandmother also adopted
mother’s two siblings, both now adults.1 Father reported that his
father died before he was born and he was raised by the paternal
grandmother and his stepfather. Father has three older
brothers.

1     The record does not clearly indicate whether mother’s
brothers are her biological siblings. The June 2019 jurisdiction
and disposition report stated only that the maternal grandmother
“also adopted [mother’s] two siblings, Jared (age 19) and Jordan
(age 23).” A December 2022 section 366.26 report indicated the
maternal grandmother “adopted three children from the
Department and their adoption finalized in 2002.”

                                3
      In March 2022, the court ordered DCFS to provide an
update as to whether it had conducted an ICWA inquiry of “all
known relatives.” In June 2022, a social worker interviewed the
maternal grandmother, who stated mother has no Indian
heritage. The maternal grandmother also had no information for
any of mother’s biological relatives. In July 2022, the court
ordered DCFS to interview the paternal grandmother. DCFS
conducted a “due diligence” search to locate the paternal
grandmother and eventually reached her in November 2022. The
paternal grandmother told DCFS neither she nor her family had
any Native American heritage. She reported there were no other
family members who could provide further information.
      In March 2023, the court ordered DCFS to interview two of
mother’s friends, mother’s two “adoptive brothers,” father’s
stepfather, and father’s three older brothers. In April 2023,
DCFS reported a social worker twice called paternal
grandmother to obtain contact information for father’s stepfather
and three older brothers, but the social worker was unable to
speak to anyone and the paternal grandmother did not respond to
the worker’s messages requesting a return call.2 The social
worker was also unable to reach father. A telephone number
DCFS had for one of mother’s friends was no longer in service.

2      DCFS’s April 2023 report indicated a social worker twice
called “maternal grandmother” at a specific telephone number to
try to obtain contact information for father’s three brothers and
his stepfather. The telephone number listed was identified in an
earlier report as the paternal grandmother’s number. It appears
the April 2023 report contained a typographical error in stating
the social worker called the maternal grandmother, when, in fact,
the worker called the paternal grandmother in an attempt to
obtain contact information for father’s brothers and stepfather.

                                4
When asked for the two friends’ contact information, mother said
she was no longer in touch with either one. When asked for
contact information for her adoptive brothers, mother responded:
“ ‘I don’t speak to anyone of them. I’m sorry.’ ”
       In April 2023, prior to terminating parental rights, the
juvenile court found there had been a “thorough I.C.W.A. review”
and that it had no reason to know ICWA applied in the case.
                           DISCUSSION
       Father contends DCFS and the court failed to comply with
ICWA requirements and state law because additional relatives
were not interviewed. We find no error.
I.     Duty of Inquiry
       Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2,
subdivision (a), both the court and the county child welfare
agency have an “affirmative and continuing duty” to inquire
whether a child is or may be an Indian child.3 An “ ‘Indian
child’ ” is “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and
is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for
membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a
member of an Indian tribe.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); § 224.1,
subd. (a).)
       Under section 224.2, subdivision (b), if a child is placed in
the Department’s temporary custody, the agency must inquire
whether the child is or may be an Indian child, by asking a
nonexclusive group that includes the child, the parents, and
extended family members. An “ ‘extended family member’ ” is an
adult who is the “Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle,
brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew,

3     All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

                                 5
first or second cousin or stepparent,” or an individual as
otherwise defined by an Indian child’s tribe. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2);
§ 224.1, subd. (c).) Further inquiry is required if the court or
social worker has reason to believe a child is an Indian child.
(§ 224.2, subd. (e).)
       Section 224.2, subdivision (i)(2), provides that if “the court
makes a finding that proper and adequate further inquiry and
due diligence as required in this section have been conducted and
there is no reason to know whether the child is an Indian child,
the court may make a finding that [ICWA] does not apply to the
proceedings, subject to reversal based on sufficiency of the
evidence.”
       In general, we review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings
for substantial evidence. (In re N.F. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 170,
178; see also In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984, 1004–
1005 (Ezequiel G.) [adopting substantial evidence review of
juvenile court finding that it had no reason to know child is an
Indian child but abuse of discretion review of decision that ICWA
inquiry was adequate].)
II.    Substantial Evidence Supported the Juvenile Court’s
       ICWA Finding
       Father contends DCFS failed to interview all “available”
family members, thus the agency’s inquiry was inadequate.
       As to paternal relatives, DCFS interviewed father and the
paternal grandmother. The paternal grandfather died before
father was born. Both father and the paternal grandmother
denied any Indian ancestry. The paternal grandmother further
told a social worker there were no other relatives who would have
additional information. On appeal, father asserts DCFS was

                                 6
required to interview the paternal great-grandfather and father’s
three adult brothers.4
      We disagree. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile
court’s ICWA finding related to father based on the information
DCFS received from the paternal grandmother and father.
Section 224.2 requires an inquiry to determine whether a child is
or may be an Indian child. An Indian child is either a member of
an Indian tribe, or the membership-eligible biological child of a
member of an Indian tribe. As a panel of this court explained in
Ezequiel G., “an Indian child is one with a tribal affiliation, not
merely Indian ancestry,” and “tribal membership typically
requires an affirmative act by the enrollee or her parent.”
(Ezequiel G., supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1009, 1010.) As a
result, the statements from both father and the paternal
grandmother that the family has no Indian ancestry, that the
children are not Indian children, and that no other relative had
additional information, provided a substantial basis for the
juvenile court to conclude there was no reason to believe or know
the children are Indian children by virtue of father’s lineage.
Nothing in the record suggests the paternal uncles or the
paternal great-grandfather had information regarding the

4     The record does not indicate that DCFS ever had direct
contact with the paternal great-grandfather. However, he was
present at an April 2019 hearing with the paternal grandmother.
At the outset of the case, mother also told DCFS the paternal
great-grandfather called her occasionally to check on K.B.

                                 7
children’s Indian status that differed from what father or the
paternal grandmother had already provided.5
       Indeed, even where there has been some indication that a
child may be an Indian child, courts have found an agency’s
inquiry sufficient without interviews of every possible relative.
For example, in In re E.W. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 314, the mother
initially informed the agency the maternal grandmother had
some Native American ancestry, but she later repeatedly denied
any such heritage. (Id. at p. 322.) The father denied any Native
American ancestry. The agency interviewed a maternal aunt and
the paternal grandmother, both of whom denied either family
had Native American ancestry. The agency did not interview
other available relatives. (Id. at pp. 323–324.) The appellate
court found substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
finding of adequate inquiry and that ICWA did not apply. The
court explained the interviews conducted “ ‘reliably answered’ the
question of whether the children were Native American children”
and the parents did not “explain how not interviewing additional
relatives . . . casts any doubt on the reliability of the answers
already obtained from the parents and relatives.” (Id. at p. 323;
cf. In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 690 [father indicated he
may have Indian ancestry and source of information was his
mother; agency’s interview with paternal grandmother was
adequate inquiry].) The same reasoning applies here.
       In reviewing the juvenile court’s ICWA findings, “the focus
of the court’s analysis should not be on the number of individuals

5     We note the paternal great-grandfather was not an
“extended family member” within the meaning of section 224.1,
subdivision (c) and 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2). (In re D.S. (2020) 46
Cal.App.5th 1041, 1053.)

                                8
interviewed, but on whether the agency’s ICWA inquiry has
yielded reliable information about a child’s possible tribal
affiliation.” (Ezequiel G., supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009.)
Here, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude the paternal
grandmother was a reliable source of information about the
children’s potential or actual membership in an Indian tribe as a
result of father’s lineage. The information obtained from father
and the paternal grandmother was sufficient to allow the juvenile
court to conclude ICWA did not apply through father and that
DCFS conducted an adequate and diligent inquiry as to father’s
lineage.
       We further note that with respect to the paternal uncles,
DCFS never had contact information for them. The paternal
uncles were not interviewed as part of the agency’s investigation
of the underlying case. DCFS was repeatedly unable to locate
father throughout the pendency of the case, including when the
juvenile court ordered DCFS to interview the paternal uncles.
The paternal grandmother also did not return repeated calls
asking for the paternal uncles’ contact information. The record
reflects that DCFS infrequently communicated with the paternal
grandmother and had difficulty getting in touch with her on prior
occasions. Father fails to explain how DCFS could conduct an
inquiry of relatives it had no means of contacting, despite the
agency’s efforts to obtain their information.
       In In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, a panel of this
court explained that when a parent fails “to provide names and
contact information for extended family members, DCFS’s ability
to conduct an exhaustive ICWA inquiry necessarily is
constrained. Although it is well established that the duty to
develop information bearing on whether a child is an Indian child

                                9
‘rests with the court and the Department, not the parents or
members of the parents’ families’ [citation], in most cases the
court and DCFS cannot satisfy this duty without the
participation of the parents. While we believe it reasonable in
many cases to require DCFS to follow up on leads provided by the
parents, we cannot ask the agency to intuit the names of
unidentified family members or to interview individuals for
whom no contact information has been provided.” (Id. at
p. 1082.)
       Likewise, as to mother’s family, DCFS interviewed the only
relative available, the adoptive maternal grandmother. The
maternal grandmother denied mother had any Indian ancestry.
The agency further asked the maternal grandmother for
information about mother’s biological relatives. She could not
provide any contact information for them. Mother also denied
that the children were Indian children, denied that she had any
Indian ancestry, and indicated she did not have contact
information for her brothers.
       Father suggests DCFS had an obligation to locate and
review mother’s adoption documents or “seek information” about
the phonetically spelled name of mother’s biological mother as
part of the ICWA inquiry. Yet, he cites no legal authority to
support his claim that this form of extensive investigation to
locate mother’s biological family members was necessary to
satisfy section 224.2. Indeed, courts have held that the child
welfare agency is not required to “ ‘cast about’ for investigative
leads” (In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 323 (A.M.)) or to
“conduct an extensive independent investigation for information.”
(In re C.Y. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 34, 41 [rejecting argument that

                               10
agency was required to investigate parent’s adoption records to
determine if child was or may be an Indian child].)
       In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542 (Y.W.), offers a helpful
contrast. As in this case, the mother in Y.W. was adopted.
However, the adoptive maternal grandmother knew the name of
the biological maternal grandfather, and she was able to obtain
contact information for the biological maternal aunt. (Id. at
p. 549.) There was no record that DCFS followed up with the
adoptive maternal grandmother to pursue the leads for the
mother’s biological relatives. The juvenile court further
erroneously indicated the adoptive maternal grandmother did not
have current contact information for the biological maternal
grandparents, despite an agency report stating the opposite. (Id.
at p. 555.)
       The Y.W. court explained that although the mother was
adopted, the investigative trail regarding her biological family
did not end with the adoptive maternal grandmother. Instead,
the adoptive maternal grandmother had “blazed a new trail of
ICWA information: She had access to knowledge about [the
mother’s] biological family the Department could have obtained
with a phone call or e-mail.” (Y.W., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at
p. 555.) Under those circumstances, the court concluded DCFS
failed to make an adequate ICWA inquiry, and the juvenile court
erred in failing to ensure the agency had adequately investigated.
       Here, the investigative trail ended with mother and the
adoptive maternal grandmother. DCFS did not have an accurate
name for the biological maternal grandmother. Both mother and
the adoptive maternal grandmother said they had no contact
information for mother’s biological relatives. Father “has not
demonstrated there was a viable lead that would require [DCFS]

                                11
‘to make a meaningful effort to locate and interview [mother’s]
extended family members to obtain whatever information they
may have as to the [children’s] possible Indian status.’
[Citation.]”6 (A.M., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 323 [the mother
was adopted, her biological parents were deceased, and she had
no information for any other biological relatives].) The record
supported the juvenile court’s conclusion that DCFS exercised
due diligence and conducted an adequate inquiry with respect to
mother’s lineage.
      The authorities father relies upon to support his argument
do not suggest reversal is warranted in this case. In In re
Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Benjamin M.), the court
concluded reversal is required where the record demonstrates the
child welfare agency failed in its duty of initial inquiry and there
was “readily obtainable information that was likely to bear
meaningfully upon whether the child is an Indian child.” (Id. at
p. 744.) Here, we do not conclude DCFS failed in its duty of

6      Father asserts that DCFS made no attempt to contact
mother’s brothers except by unsuccessfully trying to call the
adoptive maternal grandmother in March 2023. Father suggests
this demonstrated a lack of diligence because DCFS was in
regular contact with maternal grandmother. However, as noted
above, the April 2023 report appeared to erroneously indicate a
social worker attempted to contact maternal grandmother, when
the telephone number listed was the paternal grandmother’s and
the calls were to obtain information for father’s brothers and
stepfather. In a June 2022 report, DCFS informed the court it
asked maternal grandmother “for any other biological relations to
the mother for further input as the mother was adopted, but
[maternal grandmother] did not have the information.” (Italics
added.) The April 2023 report further advised the court that
mother denied having her brothers’ contact information.

                                12
initial inquiry as the agency interviewed both the parents and
extended family members on both sides.
       Further, the record does not reveal the existence of other
readily obtainable information DCFS failed to pursue that was
likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the children are Indian
children. In Benjamin M., the agency was unable to locate the
father and failed to ask either his brother or sister-in-law
whether the child had Indian ancestry through the father’s
family, even though the agency had spoken to both relatives
about the case. (Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 744.)
In this case, DCFS asked both parents about Indian heritage,
they both denied any Indian ancestry, and the agency further
interviewed an extended family member on the maternal and
paternal sides of the children’s families. And, despite social
worker efforts, DCFS was unable to obtain contact information
for nearly all other relatives.
       Similarly, in In re D.B. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 239 (D.B.),
the child welfare agency conducted an ICWA inquiry of only the
parents and did not ask any paternal relatives whether the child
was or may be an Indian child, despite speaking to at least one of
the relatives about other issues. (Id. at p. 243.) Here, DCFS
spoke with maternal grandmother and the paternal
grandmother, both of whom denied the children are or may be
Indian children. Maternal grandmother had no way of contacting
mother’s biological relatives. The paternal grandmother
indicated there were no other paternal relatives who could
provide additional information. DCFS did not speak to any other
relatives at any other point in the case. The analysis of the D.B.
court does not apply here. In re Oscar H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th
933 (Oscar H.), is inapposite for similar reasons. In Oscar H., the

                                13
child welfare agency asked neither the father nor any paternal
relatives whether the child was or may be an Indian child. That
is not the situation in this case.7
       As recently explained in In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th
711, the section 224.2, subdivision (b) extended family member
inquiry “is not intended to obligate county welfare departments
to search for possible Indian ancestry without regard to cost or
other practical considerations. Rather, it is intended to ensure
social workers ‘ask an added question of extended family
members whom [they] often already are investigating in their
usual course of work.’ [Citation.] Despite its broad terms,
section 224.2, subdivision (b) does not require inquiry with every
adult living extended family member. . . . Our review is therefore
not a mechanistic analysis of whether the record supports a
finding of literal compliance with the statute, but ‘whether the
ICWA inquiry conducted has reliably answered the question at

7     Father additionally appears to contend the juvenile court
erred in finding DCFS conducted an adequate ICWA inquiry
because there was no evidence the agency inquired of the person
reporting child abuse, “or any other person which the ICWA
inquiry is not limited to, prior to filing the section 300 petition.”
Yet, the record suggests the person who called in the original
referral was an employee at a “drop-in center” who witnessed
mother and father engage in a violent altercation. There is no
indication the drop-in center employee had any particular
familiarity with mother or her family, or that she could be
expected to have any information about whether the children are
or may be Indian children. We reject father’s contention that
there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s
ICWA findings, or that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
determining DCFS conducted an adequate inquiry, because the
agency failed to interview the reporting party in this case.

                                 14
the heart of the ICWA inquiry: Whether a child involved in a
proceeding “is or may be an Indian child.” ’ [Citation.]” (Id. at
p. 720, citing Ezequiel G., supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 1009.)
      In sum, the record establishes DCFS interviewed the
parents and available extended family members, received reliable
information as to father’s lack of Indian ancestry, and had no
viable leads to obtain more information about mother’s biological
family. The juvenile court’s ICWA findings were proper.
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court order is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                         ADAMS, J.

I concur:

                 EDMON, P. J.

                               15
LAVIN, J., Concurring:

Although I do not agree with the majority opinion in In re
Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984, I agree that, in this case,
DCFS exercised due diligence by contacting all available
extended family members to determine whether the minors are
or may be Indian children. Accordingly, I agree that the order
must be affirmed.

                                           LAVIN, J.

                                 1