Court Opinion

ID: 9384718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 19:02:36.509315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.006518
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/4/23 In re S.M. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re S.M. et al., Persons                                   B323651
Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No.
                                                             20CCJP02556A–B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

J.M.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.
      William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy
Assistant County Counsel, Jane E. Kwon, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                       I. INTRODUCTION

       J.M. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental
rights over older child S.M. (born in 2014) and younger child B.M.
(born in 2015).1 Father seeks a reversal and remand for
compliance with the inquiry and notice requirements of the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq.) and related California statutes (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et
seq.).2 We affirm.

                       II. BACKGROUND3

       On May 7, 2020, the Department filed a section 300
petition alleging the children were at risk of serious physical

1     The children’s half sibling is not a subject of this appeal.

2     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

3     Because the sole issue on appeal concerns compliance by
the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) with ICWA and
related California law, we limit our recitation of facts to those
relevant to that compliance issue, except as is necessary for
context.

                                  2
harm because of mother’s physical abuse, substance abuse,
domestic violence with half sibling’s father, and leaving the
children in maternal grandmother’s custody without a care plan.
      In ICWA-010(A) forms filed with the dependency petition,
the Department indicated that ICWA may apply because the
Department could not obtain any statements from the parents.
Maternal grandmother reported that the children did not have
Indian tribal ancestry because the family immigrated from
Guatemala. Father was incarcerated and was not in contact with
the children.
      On May 12, 2020, mother filed an ICWA-020 form, denying
any Indian ancestry.
      At the May 12, 2020, detention hearing, the juvenile court
found no reason to know that the children were Indian children
and thus ICWA did not apply. The children were detained from
mother’s custody.
      At a July 28, 2020, hearing, father appeared before the
juvenile court and was deemed the presumed father of the
children. Father submitted an ICWA-020 form indicating that he
did not have Indian ancestry.
      In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed July 24, 2020,
mother reported that she and her brother (maternal uncle) were
raised by maternal grandmother. Maternal grandfather
separated from maternal grandmother when mother was one-
year old and mother did not recall ever having met him.
Maternal grandmother had no contact information for maternal
grandfather. Father reported that he and his four brothers were
raised by paternal grandmother and paternal stepgrandfather.
Paternal grandfather died when father was young.

                                3
       At the August 11, 2020, adjudication hearing, the juvenile
court sustained the amended dependency petition. The court
stated: “Also ICWA, the court has no reason to believe that this
is a case governed by [ICWA].”
       At the December 9, 2020, disposition hearing, the juvenile
court removed the children from parental custody and ordered
family reunification services with monitored visits for the
parents. The juvenile court stated: “ICWA findings were
previously made. This is not a case governed by [ICWA].”
       On August 9, 2021, the children were placed with maternal
grandmother.
       On August 24, 2021, the juvenile court terminated mother’s
reunification services while continuing father’s reunification
services.
       On February 10, 2022, the juvenile court terminated
father’s reunification services.
       On March 21, 2022, the juvenile court noted that paternal
grandmother, who had been in contact with the Department, had
not been questioned regarding ICWA. Accordingly, the court
ordered the Department to interview paternal grandmother and
any other available paternal and maternal relatives regarding
Indian tribal ancestry, and to submit a “detailed report” of
interviews or attempted interviews.
       The Department subsequently reported that: on
May 19, 2022, maternal uncle denied having any Indian ancestry;
on May 24, 2022, paternal grandmother denied Indian ancestry;
and, on May 25, 2022, maternal grandmother again denied
Indian ancestry.
       At a June 10, 2022, hearing, the Department made a
supplemental record before the juvenile court, indicating that

                                4
maternal uncle, paternal grandmother, and maternal
grandmother denied Indian ancestry.
      On August 11, 2022, the juvenile court ordered adoption as
the permanent plan for the children.
      In a last minute information for the court filed
August 24, 2022, maternal grandmother reported that neither
she nor anyone in her family had had any contact with paternal
grandfather since 1994. On August 23, 2022, father again denied
any Indian ancestry.
      On September 15, 2022, the juvenile court terminated the
parents’ parental rights over the children. Maternal
grandmother was designated as the prospective adoptive parent.
Father appealed.

                         III. DISCUSSION

       Father argues on appeal that the Department did not
comply with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2,
subdivision (b). As we discuss further below, we disagree.
       “‘“Section 224.2, subdivision (b) specifies that once a child is
placed into the temporary custody of a county welfare
department, such as the [Department], the duty to inquire
‘includes, but is not limited to, asking the child, parents, legal
guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others
who have an interest in the child, and the party reporting child
abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, an Indian
child.’” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] [¶] We review claims of
inadequate inquiry into a child’s Indian ancestry for substantial
evidence. [Citation.]” (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433,
437–438.)

                                  5
      First, we consider father’s contention that the Department
committed reversible error by not interviewing or attempting to
interview maternal grandfather. The Department was not
required to interview maternal grandfather because, as the
record reflects, it did not have any available means of contacting
him. (See In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1083 [“Without
reliable contact information, [the Department] could not
reasonably have been expected to interview extended family
members”]; In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 323 [“ICWA
does not obligate the court or [the Department] ‘to cast about’ for
investigative leads”].)
      Next, we address and reject father’s contention that the
Department was required to interview “paternal grandfather”
regarding the children and Indian ancestry. The record reflects
that paternal grandfather was deceased. And, to the extent
father meant to refer to paternal stepgrandfather, that person is
not an “extended family member” under ICWA. (25 U.S.C.
§ 1903(2).)
      Third, we consider father’s argument that the
Department’s report of its inquiry of maternal uncle and paternal
grandmother was “cursory” and lacked the necessary “‘detail[].’”
Father fails, however, to explain how the details provided by the
Department were insufficient. As reported by the Department,
both maternal uncle and paternal grandmother denied any
Indian tribal ancestry, and such reporting is sufficient to meet
the Department’s duty of inquiry. (See § 224.2, subd. (b)
[Department has “duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian
child. Inquiry includes, but is not limited to, asking the child,

                                 6
parents, . . . extended family members, . . . whether the child is,
or may be, an Indian child . . .”].)4
      Finally, father contends that the juvenile court failed to
make ICWA findings on June 10, 2022, and September 15, 2022.
This argument is meritless. The juvenile court expressly found
at the adjudication hearing that there was no reason to believe
that ICWA applied and there is no requirement that ICWA
findings be made at every proceeding.

4     Father’s citation to In re Gabriel G. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th
1160, 1167–1168 is inapposite. There, the court concluded that
where father reported being a member of a Cherokee tribe in an
ICWA-020 form but the Department’s report stated that father
stated he did not have Indian heritage, the Department had a
duty of further inquiry. (Ibid.)

                                 7
                        IV. DISPOSITION

     The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                         KIM, J.

We concur:

             BAKER, Acting P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                               8