Court Opinion

ID: 9916449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 00:02:24.20906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:27.666019
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/9/24 In re A.J. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.J. et al., Persons Coming                               B329814
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           No. 21CCJP01901B-E)

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 K.A.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Linda Sun, Judge. Affirmed.
      Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel and Kimberly Roura, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
     Mother appeals from the April 4, 2023 order terminating
parental rights to four of her children under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother’s sole contention on
appeal is that the juvenile court erroneously failed to ensure
compliance with the inquiry 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.). We affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      This appeal concerns four of mother’s children: twins born
in 2009, a son born in 2010, and a daughter born in 2011.2 We
limit our discussion to the facts relevant to the sufficiency of the
ICWA inquiry efforts taken by the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (the Department).
       Mother first denied that the children had any Indian
ancestry in an April 2021 interview. At an April 29, 2021
detention hearing, the court noted mother had filed an ICWA-020
form also denying any Indian ancestry. Father also denied any
Indian ancestry.
       According to a June 2021 Department report, mother told
the Department she was living with one of her brothers, and she
was close with two other siblings in California. Mother’s parents

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

      2 Other parties to the dependency case, including the
children’s father, their half-siblings, or the half-siblings’ fathers,
are not parties to the current appeal.

                                   2
were deceased. Mother again denied any Indian ancestry. Based
on a prior dependency case involving mother when she was a
minor, the Department had the first names of eleven of mother’s
siblings. In September 2022, maternal aunt M.Y. denied any
Indian ancestry.
       In October 2022, a paternal aunt who was the children’s
caregiver also denied that father’s or mother’s family had any
Indian ancestry, explaining that mother’s family was of Mexican
descent.
       On October 26, 2022, the court ordered the Department to
“follow up on the ICWA inquiry,” including identifying “all
paternal and maternal relatives and follow up with the inquiry.”
In November 2022, the Department interviewed mother, father,
and paternal aunt, all of whom again denied any Indian ancestry
or possibility that any of the children were eligible to be an
Indian child. In December 2022, mother again denied that any
family member is a member of a federally recognized tribe or
otherwise connected to a federal tribe. The Department reported,
“There are no other paternal or maternal family members that
the mother has provided CSW with their information.” Paternal
aunt also said she did not have names or phone numbers for
other family members.3 In February 2023, a social worker
reiterated that mother had previously mentioned having a good
relationship with her siblings, but failed to provide their contact
information. In March 2023, the Department inquired about
possible Indian ancestry with paternal grandmother, a different

      3 We grant the Department’s Motion for Judicial Notice,
and take notice of the attached reports and orders. (Evid. Code,
§ 452, subd. (d).)

                                 3
paternal aunt, and several paternal cousins, all of whom denied
any Indian ancestry or connection to a federal Indian tribe.
      At the section 366.26 hearing on April 4, 2023, the court
made a no ICWA determination, finding that the Department
had made diligent efforts to interview father, paternal
grandmother, paternal aunts, and mother, all of whom indicated
no Indian heritage; the court also ordered parental rights for all
four children terminated.

                         DISCUSSION

ICWA inquiry

       “Congress enacted ICWA in 1978 in response to ‘rising
concern in the mid-1970’s over the consequences to Indian
children, Indian families, and Indian tribes of abusive child
welfare practices that resulted in the separation of large numbers
of Indian children from their families and tribes through
adoption or foster care placement, usually in non-Indian homes.’ ”
(In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7.) Both ICWA and California
law define an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who is either a member
of an Indian tribe or 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, subds. (a) & (b); see In re
Elizabeth M. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 768, 783.)
       California statutory law incorporates the requirements of
ICWA, and imposes some additional requirements as well. (In re
Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 91; In re Benjamin M. (2021)
70 Cal.App.5th 735, 741–742.) State law imposes on the
Department a first-step inquiry duty to “interview, among others,

                                 4
extended family members and others who had an interest in the
child.” (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; see § 224.2,
subd. (b).) Federal regulations explain that the term “[e]xtended
family member is defined by the law or custom of the Indian
child’s Tribe or, in the absence of such law or custom, is a person
who has reached age 18 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 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2017).) The duty of initial inquiry
includes making a meaningful effort to interview available
relatives. (In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 552–553.)
When there is “reason to believe that an Indian child is involved
in a proceeding,” further inquiry is also required. (§ 224.2,
subd. (e); In re T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 290, fn. 14.) “We
review claims of inadequate inquiry into a child’s Indian ancestry
for substantial evidence.” (In re H.V., at p. 438.)
       Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding ICWA
inapplicable without evidence that the Department had made a
meaningful effort to locate and interview maternal extended
relatives about possible Indian ancestry.4 We disagree.

      4 Mother’s opening brief anticipates that the Department
would argue no duty of initial inquiry under ICWA applied
because the children were detained pursuant to a protective
custody warrant. (See In re C.L. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 377, 385,
describing split of authority between the holdings of In re Robert
F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 492, review granted July 26, 2023,
S279743, and In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, 970–976,
review granted Sept. 27, 2023, S281447.) However, the
Department does not make the anticipated argument.
Accordingly, we proceed with the understanding that section

                                 5
      Mother and father both denied any Indian ancestry, as did
the various paternal and maternal relatives interviewed by the
Department. In addition, maternal aunt M.Y. denied any Indian
ancestry when she was contacted on September 26, 2022. Other
than maternal aunt M.Y, there is no evidence in the record that
the Department was in contact with any maternal relatives, or
that any person suggested that any of mother’s siblings or other
relatives had any information about possible Indian ancestry.
The Department had the names of mother’s siblings, but no
contact information. Mother and other relatives did not provide
any contact information for mother’s siblings when asked.
Further investigation to locate these or additional extended
relatives was not required. (In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th
191, 199 [child protective agency is not required to conduct an
extensive independent investigation or to “cast about” for
investigative leads]; see also In re H.B. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th
711, 721 [where “representatives from both sides of two
generational levels” of minor’s family denied Indian ancestry, but
not every extended relative was contacted, ICWA determination
supported by substantial evidence].)

224.2, subdivision (b), required the Department to inquire of
available extended family members whether the minors were or
may be, Indian children.

                                6
                        DISPOSITION

     The juvenile court’s April 4, 2023 order terminating
parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26 is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                   MOOR, J.

I concur:

            KIM, J.

                               7
In re A.J. et al.
B329814

BAKER, Acting P. J., Concurring

       While I do not join the opinion for the court’s
characterization of state law related to the Indian Child Welfare
Act, I agree substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
determination that adequate inquiry was made into whether the
minors in question are Indian children.

                      BAKER, Acting P. J.