Court Opinion

ID: 9913743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 18:02:11.931161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:40.705257
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/28/23 In re R.W. 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                        (Glenn)
                                                            ----

    In re R.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile                                       C098678
    Court Law.

    GLENN COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN                                                (Super. Ct. Nos. 23JP01067,
    SERVICES AGENCY ,                                                              23JP01068, 23JP01069)

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

             v.

    J.W.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

            Appellant J.W. (father), father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s
dispositional orders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.)1 Father contends the juvenile court
and the Glenn County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply

1           Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                                             1
with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C.
§ 1901 et seq.). The Agency concedes the error.
       Because the juvenile court had yet to make a final ICWA finding with respect to
these minors at the time of this appeal, and the ICWA inquiry is still ongoing in that
court, we will dismiss the ICWA claim on appeal as premature and affirm the orders of
the juvenile court from which this appeal was taken.
                                    BACKGROUND
       A detailed recitation of the facts and non-ICWA related procedural history is
unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal.
       The Agency filed identical dependency petitions on behalf of each of the minors
pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging the minors were at risk due to domestic
violence in the home.2 The Indian child inquiry forms (ICWA-010) attached to the
petitions indicated ICWA inquiry of father and V.W. (mother) revealed the minors might
either be members or eligible for membership in the Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. The
disposition report clarified that mother denied Indian ancestry, but father claimed
possible Cherokee ancestry. The minors were detained and initially placed with a relative
but were ultimately placed together in a foster home.
       At the detention hearing on March 7, 2023, the Agency’s counsel informed the
court that the minors had possible Indian ancestry. The court ordered the minors
detained, found there was a reason to believe the minors were Indian children, and
ordered the Agency to conduct further inquiry and file any evidence with the court.
       The March 30, 2023, jurisdiction report included father’s completed parental
notification of Indian status form (ICWA-020) stating his belief that he had Indian
ancestry on the maternal side of his family. The report stated the Agency completed

2      A second allegation was later stricken by the juvenile court.

                                                2
ICWA notices (ICWA-030) utilizing information provided by father and the paternal
aunt. However, there were no ICWA notices attached to the report.
       The Agency’s May 16, 2023, disposition report included the names of maternal
and paternal relatives provided by the parents as possible placements for the minors. The
report also included the names of father’s seven siblings and their whereabouts, five of
whom resided in California and with all of whom father maintained a relationship.
Mother had also provided the Agency with the names and locations of the maternal
grandparents and a maternal aunt, all of whom resided in California. The disposition
report confirmed mother’s denial of Indian heritage as to all three minors. The Agency
reported that father completed additional ICWA-020 forms for two of the minors stating
he believed he had Indian ancestry with the following tribes: Cherokee, Comanche, and
Blackfoot, all located in Oklahoma. The forms were attached as exhibits to the
disposition report.
       At the May 18, 2023, jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court sustained the
petitions as modified, adjudged the minors dependents of the juvenile court, and ordered
their continued out-of-home placement. The court inquired about the ICWA further,
noting there was a possibility the minors or the parents might be affiliated with various
tribes and asking whether the Agency had made any further ICWA inquiry. The
Agency’s counsel informed the court that the ICWA does or may apply stating, “It’s
possible all three children have Cherokee ancestry. We’re serving notice to them and the
Blackfoot and Comanche tribes on the paternal side. [¶] That’s all I have.” In that
regard, the court found as follows: “The children may be Indian children and notice of
the proceedings and the rights of the tribe to intervene was provided as required by law.
[¶] The children are not old enough to ask if they are of Native American heritage. With
that said, the social workers have asked [the paternal aunt] whether there is information
indicating the children are Indian children, as well as the parents. The parties have been
instructed to inform the Court if they receive any information indicating that the children

                                             3
are Indian children.” The court’s written order stated the minors may be Indian children
and “notice of the proceeding and the right of the tribe to intervene was provided as
required by law. Proof of such notice was filed with this court.”
       Father filed a timely notice of appeal of the jurisdiction and disposition orders.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Father contends the Agency’s inquiry into the minors’ possible Native American
heritage was insufficient because the minors’ paternal and maternal extended family
members were not interviewed despite the fact that the Agency was aware of and in some
cases had contact with various relatives. Father also contends the Agency failed to
include in its reports evidence of the ICWA notices it claimed to have sent to various
Indian tribes as well as what specific information was included in those notices. Finally,
father contends the juvenile court erred when it found the Agency provided “notice of the
proceedings and the rights of the tribe to intervene . . . as required by law.”
       The Agency concedes its further ICWA inquiry and documentation related thereto
was inadequate and did not comply with the requirements of the ICWA and related
California statues.
       We agree that the Agency’s ICWA efforts were inadequate and the juvenile
court’s interim ICWA finding was erroneous; however, as we explain, the ICWA claim
on appeal is premature and accordingly must be dismissed.
       “The juvenile court and the [Agency] have an affirmative and continuing duty,
beginning at initial contact, to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings
is, or may be, an Indian child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a); § 224.2, subd. (a).)”
(In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355, 360, review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056; see
also In re K.M. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119.) “[I]f that initial inquiry creates a
‘reason to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then the Agency ‘shall make further
inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as
soon as practicable.’ ” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1052, italics omitted.)

                                              4
       The Agency’s inquiry, noticing, and documentation were inadequate. For
example, father identified the names, ages, and general locations of his seven siblings,
some of whom resided in California. Nothing in the record suggests the Agency
contacted or inquired of any of those individuals about Indian ancestry. The Agency was
also in contact with at least one maternal relative for the purpose of possible relative
placement. Yet the record is devoid of any evidence of attempts by the Agency to make
ICWA inquiry of any maternal relatives.
       Given the conceded inadequacies by the Agency, the juvenile court erred in
finding that notice of the proceedings had been provided as required by law. The court
had a duty to ensure the Agency made further appropriate inquiries — which the Agency
agrees it did not do — and then make findings based on the results of all inquiries,
including the court’s own. (See In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 319 [“ICWA and
the corresponding provisions of California law impose an affirmative and continuing duty
on the juvenile court to inquire whether the child is an Indian child”].)
       However, while it is clear from the record that ICWA inquiry thus far was
inadequate and documentation regarding inquiry and notice efforts nonexistent, and while
the court made the interim finding that the Agency complied with notice requirements “as
required by law,” the court made no final ruling at or before the challenged hearing as to
whether the ICWA applied. Thus, father’s claim is premature. That is, any ICWA issues
are not yet ripe for review. “ ‘Ripeness’ refers to the requirements of a current
controversy.” (City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 59.) An
issue is not ripe for review unless and until it is “sufficiently concrete to allow judicial
resolution even in the absence of a precise factual context.” (Pacific Legal Foundation v.
California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170; see id. at pp. 170-172.)
       Because the minors’ dependency case is still ongoing, these and any other
perceived deficiencies with ICWA inquiry and noticing can and should be brought to the
juvenile court’s attention and may be resolved during the normal course of the ongoing

                                               5
dependency proceedings. (See In re M.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 886, 904 [ICWA claim
was premature where no final ICWA ruling was made at dispositional hearing].) Indeed,
“ ‘[c]ounsel should not forget that they are officers of the court, and while it is their duty
to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to
aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice
and the established rules of practice.’ ” (Williams v. Superior Court (1996)
46 Cal.App.4th 320, 330.) If at any time, a parties’ counsel becomes aware that the
juvenile court has failed to make necessary findings or orders, or that the agency has
failed to make adequate inquiry under the ICWA, it is the obligation of counsel to
promptly bring such matters to the attention of the juvenile court.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The sole claim alleging error under the ICWA is dismissed as premature. The
orders of the juvenile court from which this appeal was taken are affirmed.

                                                       /s/
                                                   EARL, P. J.

We concur:

    /s/
KRAUSE, J.

    /s/
KEITHLEY, J.*

*       Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                               6