Court Opinion

ID: 9894171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:04:06.880183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:51.681472
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/31/23 In re A.R. CA2/1
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 In re A.R., et al., a Person Coming                                B328795
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
 _________________________________                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                    Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP02081A)
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 EILEEN M.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Jean M. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.
      Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant
County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              ______________________________
       Eileen M. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to her daughter, A.R. Mother’s
sole contention on appeal is the Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) failed to fulfill its duties under state
law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)
(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) by neglecting to interview six extended
family members concerning A.R.’s possible Indian1 heritage.
Because we conclude that any error by DCFS in failing to interview
these family members was harmless, we affirm.

           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY2
      A.    Overview
      Mother and J.R. (Father) share one child, A.R. (age 3 years).
In 2014, the juvenile court sustained a DCFS petition for two
of A.R.’s six maternal half siblings, due in part to Mother’s
methamphetamine use. Mother failed to reunify with these children.
      On April 13, 2020, DCFS filed a Welfare & Institutions Code3
section 300 petition alleging, inter alia, that Mother’s substance
abuse—including her alleged use of methamphetamine during
her pregnancy—placed then one-month-old A.R. at risk of serious
physical harm. The petition alleged further that Father failed to

      1 “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we do the same
for consistency, even though we recognize that other terms, such
as ‘Native American’ or ‘indigenous,’ are preferred by many.” (In re
Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 739, fn. 1 (Benjamin M.).)
      2 As Mother’s sole argument on appeal concerns the duties
of inquiry and notice imposed by ICWA and related California law,
we limit our factual and procedural summary accordingly.
      3 All unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                  2
protect A.R. from Mother, and that his drug-related criminal history
endangered A.R.’s safety and emotional well-being.
      DCFS placed A.R. with a foster family, where she remained
for the duration of the dependency proceedings. Mother and Father
visited A.R. only inconsistently and failed to comply meaningfully
with their court-ordered case plans. Accordingly, at the February 21,
2023 section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s
and Father’s parental rights to A.R. and designated her foster
caregivers—with whom social workers reported A.R. was thriving—
as her prospective adoptive parents. Mother timely appealed.4

      B.    ICWA Inquiries
       Throughout the dependency proceedings, Father denied any
Indian heritage. He disclaimed any such ancestry in his parental
notification of Indian status form (Judicial Council Forms, form
ICWA-020 (ICWA-020 form)) filed with the juvenile court, as well
as during the April 17, 2020 detention hearing and in a June 12,
2020 statement to a social worker. In addition, a social worker
interviewed A.R.’s paternal grandfather, who reiterated that Father
did not have any Indian ancestry.
       Initially, Mother also denied any Indian heritage. The ICWA
child inquiry attachment (Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-10(A))
appended to DCFS’s section 300 petition indicated that Mother
had denied any Indian ancestry during a March 20, 2020 interview.
At the subsequent detention hearing, however, Mother reported that
her maternal great-grandmother and maternal great-grandfather

      4 Father did not appeal the juvenile court’s termination of
parental rights.

                                  3
had Indian ancestry. The juvenile court therefore ordered DCFS to
investigate Mother’s possible Indian heritage.5
       DCFS pursued several lines of investigation. First, a social
worker reviewed the dependency case files for A.R.’s half siblings.
The files disclosed that Mother had claimed both Cherokee and
Apache heritage in the prior proceedings, and that—after
interviewing Mother, maternal grandmother, and maternal
great-grandmother—DCFS had provided notice of the half siblings’
dependency proceedings to various Cherokee and Apache tribes.
Each of the tribes that responded indicated that A.R.’s half siblings
were ineligible for tribal membership. Based on this investigation,
the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply in the half siblings’
dependency proceedings as to Mother. DCFS reported the findings
from its review of the maternal half siblings’ dependency case files
to the juvenile court in A.R.’s case.
       Next, DCFS repeatedly interviewed Mother concerning
her possible Indian ancestry. Mother indicated that she had been
investigating her heritage on the “ancestry.com” website. Based
on her research, she claimed that A.R.’s maternal grandmother’s
family descended from a Cherokee tribe and that A.R.’s maternal
grandfather’s family descended from an Apache tribe (i.e., the
same heritage Mother had claimed in the half siblings’ dependency
proceedings). In addition, Mother informed the investigating
social worker that a maternal great-aunt could provide additional
information concerning maternal great-grandmother’s heritage.
But when the social worker contacted the maternal great-aunt, she
informed the social worker that any additional family members who
might have relevant information all were deceased. Because Mother

      5 Although the juvenile court also directed Mother to file an
ICWA-020 form, the record does not contain any such form.

                                  4
continued to provide other ICWA-related information to DCFS
in a piecemeal fashion, the juvenile court eventually expressed
concern that Mother was “manipulating the process.” Accordingly,
at a hearing on December 1, 2022—more than two and a half years
into the proceedings—the court ordered that DCFS “need not ask
Mother anything further about ICWA.”
       In addition to interviewing Mother, a social worker attempted
to interview A.R.’s maternal grandmother on several occasions.
The maternal grandmother failed to return several of the social
worker’s calls and eventually stated that she had no ICWA-related
information to provide other than her belief the family had Cherokee
Tohono O’odham heritage.
       Finally, DCFS sent notice of A.R.’s dependency proceedings
to 12 tribes: Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe
of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; San Carlos
Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero
Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Tonto
Apache Tribe Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort
Apache; Yavapai Apache Nation of the Camp Verde; Tohono O’odham
Nation of Arizona; Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
Indians. The notices provided considerable detail, including the
full names, addresses, and dates of birth of Mother, Father, A.R.’s
maternal grandmother, maternal grandfather, two maternal
great-grandmothers, and a maternal great-grandfather. In
addition, the notices provided the names of A.R.’s maternal
great-great-grandmother and maternal great-great-grandfather.

                                 5
Each of the 10 tribes that responded to the notices indicated that
A.R. was ineligible for tribal membership.6
      Based on DCFS’s investigation, the juvenile court found at
the February 21, 2023 section 366.26 hearing that there was “no
reason to know that [A.R.] is an Indian child within the meaning
of [ICWA].”
                           DISCUSSION
       Mother contends that DCFS failed to comply with state
law implementing ICWA by neglecting to interview six extended
family members—a maternal aunt, an adult maternal half sibling,
a maternal grandfather, a paternal grandmother, and two paternal
aunts—concerning A.R.’s possible Indian ancestry. We conclude,
however, that any error in failing to interview these family members
was harmless.
       When DCFS files a petition under section 300 concerning a
child, it has “an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether
[the] child . . . is or may be an Indian child” within the meaning
of ICWA. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 9
(Isaiah W.).) “ ‘The duty to inquire consists of two phases—the
duty of initial inquiry and the duty of further inquiry.’ [Citation.]”
(In re C.L. (Oct. 13, 2023, C097911) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 WL
6780405 at *2] (C.L.).) Mother urges that under California law,
including rule 5.481(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court, DCFS’s
initial inquiry duty includes a duty to “ask . . . extended family
members . . . whether the child is or may be an Indian child”
whenever DCFS seeks termination of parental rights. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 5.481(a)(1).) ICWA and related California law define
“ ‘extended family member’ ” by “the law or custom of the Indian

      6 The two remaining tribes did not respond to the notices,
despite the passage of more than 90 days.

                                  6
child’s tribe” or, absent such law or custom, as “a person who has
reached the age of eighteen and who is the Indian child’s
grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or
sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or stepparent.”
(25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (c) [extended
family member “defined as provided in [section] 1903” of ICWA].)
       Appellate courts disagree about whether DCFS always must
inquire of extended family members as part of its initial inquiry
duty. (Compare In re Andres R. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 828, 853
[with limited case-specific exceptions, DCFS’s initial inquiry duty
requires it to interview extended family members “only if [a] child
was taken into temporary custody without a warrant”] with C.L.,
supra, ___Cal.App.5th___ [2023 WL 6780405 at p. *3] [“ ‘there is
only one duty of initial inquiry, and that duty encompasses available
extended family members no matter how the child is initially
removed from [the] home’ ”].)
       Even assuming, however, DCFS erred by failing to interview
the family members Mother identifies, any inquiry error here
was harmless. Although appellate courts have adopted a range
of tests for examining prejudice arising from ICWA inquiry error,
this division has held such error reversible only if “ ‘it is reasonably
probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would
have been reached in the absence of the error.’ [Citations.]” (In
re S.S. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 575, 581; see also In re S.H. (2022)
82 Cal.App.5th 166, 175–176 [describing five different tests for
analyzing prejudice].) In assessing prejudice, we look to whether
“ ‘the record indicates that there was readily obtainable information
that was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is
an Indian child.’ ” (S.S., supra, at p. 582, quoting Benjamin M.,
supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 744.)

                                   7
       The record discloses that DCFS expended considerable time
and effort investigating A.R.’s possible Indian heritage. With respect
to A.R.’s maternal ancestry, social workers repeatedly interviewed
Mother, as well as a maternal grandmother and a maternal aunt.
DCFS also attempted to obtain A.R.’s maternal grandfather’s
contact information to schedule an ICWA interview, but neither
Mother nor A.R.’s maternal grandmother could provide it. In
addition, DCFS noticed a dozen Cherokee and Apache tribes, and
the 10 that responded indicated that A.R. was ineligible for tribal
membership. We therefore are unpersuaded by Mother’s conjecture
that A.R.’s other maternal aunt or her maternal half sibling
might have possessed maternal grandfather’s contact information
or other relevant ICWA-related information unavailable to the
maternal relatives DCFS interviewed. Moreover, the juvenile
court’s prior determination that ICWA did not apply to A.R.’s
maternal half siblings further supports that any inquiry error with
respect to the maternal relatives did not result in prejudice here.
(See In re Darian R. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 502, 509–510.)
       As for A.R.’s paternal heritage, Father repeatedly denied any
Indian ancestry. Notwithstanding his denials, DCFS interviewed a
paternal grandfather, who reiterated that Father did not have any
Indian heritage. Mother urges that, because DCFS did not interview
A.R.’s paternal grandmother or two paternal aunts, “there remained
readily obtainable information that was likely to bear meaningfully
upon whether A.R. was an Indian child.” But A.R.’s paternal
grandfather remained married to paternal grandmother, and
the likelihood that she or the paternal aunts had American Indian
heritage unbeknownst to both the paternal grandfather and Father
is speculative.
       Accordingly, we conclude DCFS’s failure to interview the
extended family members Mother identifies was harmless, and

                                  8
we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental
rights.

                          DISPOSITION
      The February 21, 2023 order terminating parental rights is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                      ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:

                 CHANEY, J.

                 WEINGART, J.

                                  9