Court Opinion

ID: 9385142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 22:03:16.684328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.202309
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/5/23 In re D.L. 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court                                          C097046
 Law.

 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF                                                   (Super. Ct. No. JD238366)
 CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 D.L.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         D.L. (mother) appeals from juvenile court orders terminating her parental rights
and directing that D.L. (minor) be placed for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1
Mother contends the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult
Services (Department) failed to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child

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

                                                             1
Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because the Department failed to ask all
relatives involved in the proceedings about minor’s potential Indian ancestry. We will
conditionally affirm the juvenile court orders and remand the matter for further
compliance with ICWA, including inquiry directed to minor’s paternal and maternal
relatives.
                                     BACKGROUND
       In July 2017, minor’s father died in a car accident. A few weeks later, on a
referral from a mandatory reporter, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf
of minor (born in October 2015). The minor was medically fragile and had serious health
issues. The petition alleged general neglect. It alleged mother had mental health
challenges affecting her ability to care for minor and that she had authorized contact
between minor and another man that appeared inappropriate.
       According to the petition, mother told the Department minor has no known Indian
ancestry. And in the detention report, the Department indicated there is no reported
Native American heritage.
       Mother completed the ICWA-20 form stating she had “no Indian ancestry as far as
I know.” At the detention hearing in 2017 (for which we do not have a reporter’s
transcript), the juvenile court found there was “no evidence before the Court that [the]
child is an Indian child within the meaning of [ICWA]. [¶] There is no reason to know
the child is an Indian child. [¶] No further ICWA notice is required.” It ordered mother
to disclose to the agency any other relatives of the minor.
       In its jurisdiction report, the Department attached a petition and order from a prior
2016 dependency case for minor’s full sibling. According to the prior petition, both
mother and father claimed the sibling had no known Indian heritage. At the initial
hearing in that case, the juvenile court found there was no evidence the sibling was an
Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. Those proceedings were ultimately

                                             2
terminated, and there is no information in the record of any additional inquiry made as to
the sibling’s Indian ancestry.
       During the current proceeding, the Department interviewed minor’s paternal
grandmother, paternal step-grandfather, paternal aunt, and maternal grandmother. The
maternal grandmother and paternal aunt also went through the resource family approval
process to establish eligibility as caregivers for minor. But there is no evidence in the
appellate record that the Department or the juvenile court asked any of those relatives
about minor’s potential Indian ancestry, and there is no evidence those relatives provided
any information on this subject.
       The juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights in August 2022 and
directed that minor be placed for adoption.
                                        DISCUSSION
       Mother argues the juvenile court and the Department should have asked the
identified relatives about minor’s ancestry.
       “ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and
security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian
children from their families, and by permitting tribal participation in dependency
proceedings. [Citations.]” (In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 662.) ICWA defines
an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who “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).)
       The juvenile court and the Department 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).)
We review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s Native American ancestry for
substantial evidence. (In re Rebecca R. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1430.)

                                               3
        Here, at the initial hearing, the juvenile court received information from mother
via an ICWA-20 form stating she had no knowledge minor had Indian ancestry. Due to
the recent death of minor’s father, the juvenile court could not make such an inquiry of
him. But there is no record the paternal grandparents, paternal aunt, or maternal
grandmother were asked about minor’s potential Indian ancestry.
        The Department acknowledges it did not inquire with minor’s extended family,
but argues there is no prejudice because mother denied Indian ancestry in this case, both
parents denied such ancestry in the sibling’s previous case, and mother provided no
evidence or offer of proof that minor might have Indian heritage. As we read the record,
however, mother did not deny Indian ancestry, she said she has no knowledge of it. As
for father’s asserted denial in the prior case, in this case the juvenile court did not take
judicial notice of it or rely upon it; and aside from the petition and the detention order, the
record in this case does not include ICWA compliance documentation from the previous
case.
        California Courts of Appeal have taken different approaches regarding when to
reverse in failure-to-inquire cases. (See In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 779-
786, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578 [discussing three approaches and adopting a
fourth].) One line of cases holds that an error in the initial inquiry must result in reversal
because the duty to inquire is mandatory and unconditional. (See, e.g., In re J.C. (2022)
77 Cal.App.5th 70, 80.) A second line of cases holds that such error is presumptively
harmless unless a showing is made by the parent on appeal (such as by an offer of proof)
why further inquiry would lead to a different ICWA finding. (See In re A.C. (2021)
65 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1069.) A third line of cases holds reversal is required when the
agency failed in its duty of initial inquiry and the record indicates there is readily
obtainable information likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is an Indian
child. (In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.)

                                               4
       Here, although it is arguable the failure of inquiry was harmless, the case involves
some unique circumstances, such as father’s recent death. Until the California Supreme
Court has had an opportunity to address the split in authority, we will conditionally
affirm the juvenile court orders and remand the matter for further compliance with
ICWA, including inquiry directed to minor’s paternal and maternal relatives.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The orders terminating parental rights are conditionally affirmed, and the matter is
remanded for further compliance with ICWA, including inquiry directed to minor’s
paternal and maternal relatives. If, on remand, the juvenile court determines ICWA
applies, the juvenile court shall vacate its previous orders terminating parental rights and
conduct further proceedings consistent with ICWA, including a new section 366.26
hearing. (25 U.S.C. § 1914; § 224, subd. (e).)

                                                     /S/
                                                  MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

    /S/
DUARTE, J.

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                              5