Court Opinion

ID: 9895839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:04:34.226806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:04.167308
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/8/23 In re Abraham C. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ABRAHAM C., a Person                                   B328451
 Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
 Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No. 18LJJP00277)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 ARMANDO C.,

            Defendant and
            Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Stephanie M. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
      David M. Yorton, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                _______________________________
                                                                 1
       In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.),
Armando C. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating parental rights over his son Abraham C. Father
contends we must remand the matter for compliance with the
Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; (ICWA)) and
California law implementing ICWA. He argues (1) at his first
court appearance, the juvenile court did not make the requisite
ICWA inquiry; (2) the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) did not provide the
juvenile court with return receipts for the ICWA notices it sent to
the tribes, or any responses received from the tribes relating to
Abraham (as opposed to his half sibling); and (3) the juvenile
court did not make a final ICWA finding in Abraham’s case.
Father does not challenge the order terminating parental rights
on grounds other than ICWA compliance.
       We reject Father’s contention that the matter must be
remanded for ICWA compliance. As explained more fully below,
the juvenile court’s initial inquiry error was harmless in light of
DCFS’s ICWA inquiry of Father. ICWA notice was not required
in this case because there is no reason to know Abraham is an
Indian child under section 224.2. And the court did in fact make

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

                                 2
a final ICWA finding, stating it had no reason to believe ICWA
applies in Abraham’s case.
                         BACKGROUND
I.    DCFS Files These Dependency Proceedings, and the
      Matter Proceeds for More Than Three-and-a-Half
      Years Before Father Makes His First Appearance
      In March 2018, DCFS received a general neglect referral
regarding Linda C. (Mother) and her two children, Isabella G.
(then, five years old) and Abraham C. (then, nearly two years
old). During DCFS’s investigation of the referral, Mother
identified Thomas G. as Isabella’s father, and Father as
                  2
Abraham’s father. Mother explained that Father was in prison
(where he remained for the duration of these proceedings). Based
on its investigation, DCFS sought and obtained a warrant
authorizing removal of the children from Mother, and DCFS
                                             3
placed both children in the same foster home.
      On May 1, 2018, DCFS filed a dependency petition
concerning Isabella and Abraham, with allegations against
Mother under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). Mother
appeared at the detention hearing held the same day. She
submitted a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-

      2
       Neither Mother nor Thomas G. is a party to this appeal.
Thus, this appeal does not concern Isabella.
      3
        We include only the facts germane to Father’s contentions
on appeal regarding the juvenile court’s and DCFS’s compliance
with ICWA and California law implementing ICWA. The reasons
this family came to the attention of DCFS, and the bases for the
juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the children, are
not pertinent to this appeal, so we do not discuss them herein.

                                3
020), indicating she had “no Indian ancestry as far as [she]
knew.” The juvenile court deemed Thomas G. to be Isabella’s
presumed parent and Father to be Abraham’s presumed parent.
The court asked Mother if she believed either of them had
“American Indian” ancestry, and she responded in the negative.
The court found that based on the information before it there was
no reason to know that Isabella or Abraham is an Indian child as
defined under ICWA. The court made detention findings against
the three parents, and the children remained placed in foster
    4
care. Father did not appear at the detention hearing.
      At the adjudication hearing on July 26, 2018, Mother
pleaded no contest to an amended count under section 300,
subdivision (b). The juvenile court deferred a further ICWA
ruling as to Abraham and ordered DCFS to provide further
information. The court set the matter for a disposition hearing.
Father was not present at the adjudication hearing. He had
signed forms earlier in July requesting counsel and indicating he
did not want to be physically present in court at the hearing, but
he wanted to participate in the hearing by videoconference or
telephone. For reasons not clear from the record, his
participation at the hearing was not facilitated.
      In advance of the disposition hearing, Father again signed
forms requesting counsel, waiving his physical presence, and
indicating he wanted to participate by videoconference or
telephone. This time, a prison official checked a box on the form
indicating the prison could not provide Father “with

        4
        From here, we will not discuss the proceedings relating to
Isabella unless they are pertinent to Abraham’s case and the
issues before us.

                                4
videoconference or telephonic technology that complies with” the
California Rules of Court.
       At a hearing on January 23, 2019, the juvenile court
sustained an additional count against Mother under section 300,
subdivision (b) and proceeded with the disposition hearing.
Mother was present and Father was not (either physically or
virtually). Nor was Father represented by counsel. The court
declared Abraham a dependent of the court, removed him from
Mother and Father, and ordered him placed under DCFS’s
supervision. The court ordered reunification services and
visitation for Mother, but not Father. Twenty months later, on
September 18, 2020, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s
reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 permanency
planning hearing for Abraham. Father still had not appeared at
a hearing in this matter.
       On December 20, 2021, at a continued section 366.26
hearing, an attorney made a special appearance on behalf of
Father, but was not appointed to represent him. Father
participated virtually from his place of incarceration. The
juvenile court noted this was Father’s first appearance in these
dependency proceedings. The court continued the matter at
DCFS’s request and ordered that the prison make Father
available at the next hearing by video or telephone. The court
did not make an ICWA inquiry of Father (and there was no
discussion regarding ICWA at the hearing).
       On March 11, 2022, Father filed a section 388 petition
requesting, among other things, that the juvenile court vacate the
section 366.26 hearing and set a new adjudication and disposition
hearing. He argued his due process rights were violated because
the juvenile court did not secure his presence at the adjudication

                                5
and disposition hearings and appoint counsel to represent him,
despite his requests for same made in advance of the hearings.
The juvenile court set the section 388 petition for a hearing.
Father was present via Webex at the May 3, 2022 hearing on his
petition, and he appeared through appointed counsel. The court
granted the petition and set Abraham’s case for a new disposition
hearing.
II.    ICWA Inquiries, Notices, and Findings
       On May 9, 2022, a relative information form was filed on
Father’s behalf, listing names and contact information for
Abraham’s paternal uncle (M.M.), grandmother (G.M.), and half
sister (L.G.).
       In a Disposition Report regarding Abraham, prepared on or
about August 23, 2022, DCFS stated ICWA may apply, listing the
Pascua Yaqui and Cherokee tribes. According to the report, on
June 7, 2022, Father informed a dependency investigator he
“believe[d] he ha[d] Indian Ancestry with the Yaqui Tribe,” but
he was unsure which side of his family had such ancestry. He
provided a telephone number for his sister, L.M., and told the
investigator she would be able to provide additional information.
The same day, the investigator spoke with L.M., who stated she
believed there was “Indian ancestry . . . on the paternal side of
her family,” but she did “not have much information regarding
her paternal relatives.” She explained that she did not “have
much contact with her biological father” and her mother was
deceased. She provided her/Father’s parents’ names, but was
“not able to provide much more details.” She also was unable to
identify a tribe and could not confirm Father’s statement
regarding possible Pascua Yaqui ancestry. She told the
investigator she had connected with some relatives “from

                                6
providing DNA” and would “continue to reach out to her
biological family on her father’s side.” On August 17, 2022, the
investigator followed up with L.M., who stated she was in touch
with her paternal aunt and would ask if she could provide the
aunt’s telephone number to the investigator. According to the
Disposition Report, however, L.M. provided no additional
information.
       Next, the investigator interviewed Abraham’s paternal
uncle M.M. regarding Abraham’s possible Native American
ancestry. As set forth in the Disposition Report, M.M. believed
Father might have Native American ancestry, but he “could not
provide the name of a tribe or any additional information that
would assist in completing the family tree for ICWA inquiry.”
Nor did he “know anyone” who would be able to provide
additional information.
       Finally, the investigator interviewed G.M., Abraham’s
great-aunt, who is the sister of Father’s mother. (Apparently,
this is the person listed on Father’s relative information form as
Abraham’s grandmother.) After spending time in foster care,
Father was placed in G.M.’s home as a child. G.M. denied Native
American ancestry on Father’s maternal side of the family,
stating that her parents were Mexican; and she was unaware of
any Native American ancestry on Father’s paternal side of the
family. She confirmed that Father’s mother is deceased. She was
“unable to provide [the investigator] with additional information
                                                 5
to complete the family tree for ICWA inquiry.”

      5
        The Disposition Report indicates that the investigator
spoke with Father’s 19-year-old daughter (Abraham’s half
sibling) L.G., the other person listed on Father’s relative

                                7
      In an Addendum Report, prepared in advance of the August
31, 2022 disposition hearing regarding Abraham, DCFS stated
that on July 15, 2022, the dependency investigator sent a letter to
Father requesting further information about his possible Native
American ancestry. The letter, which DCFS attached to the
report, states:
      “[DCFS] would like to ask questions regarding your family
having any possible Native American Heritage. Could you please
use the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope and notebook
paper to write down any relative’s names and contact information
that would be able to answer the following questions and send it
to me? Thank you.
      “1. Are you or any family members registered with an
Indian Tribe?
      “2. Have you or any family members resided on an Indian
Reservation?
      “3. Have you or any family members received services from
a Tribe such as medical, dental or other services[?]
      “4. Have you or any family members attended school on a
Reservation?
      “5. Do you or any family members receive monetary
benefits from a Tribe?
      “6. Do you or any family members have Native American
heritage?” As set forth in the Addendum Report, Father did not
respond to the letter.

information form. The discussion centered on potential
placement for Abraham, and there is no indication that the
investigator asked L.G. about possible Native American ancestry.
Father does not contend this constitutes ICWA inquiry error.

                                8
       The Addendum Report further states that the investigator
spoke with Abraham’s maternal grandmother (Mother’s mother),
who stated that Abraham’s maternal great-grandmother was
“half Cherokee.” The maternal grandmother reported that none
of her family members, including Abraham’s great-grandmother,
lived or attended school on a reservation, or received services or
monetary compensation from a tribe. She was not aware of any
family member, including Abraham’s great-grandmother, being
registered with a tribe. She did not believe Mother’s father had
Native American ancestry and reported that he was from Mexico.
She provided contact information for Mother’s paternal aunt
(Abraham’s great-aunt), who confirmed when the investigator
contacted her that Mother’s paternal family did not have Native
American ancestry. She explained that Mother’s paternal great-
grandmother was from Spain and Mother’s paternal great-
grandfather was from Mexico; and Mother’s paternal grandfather
lived in Mexico.
       On or about August 18, 2022, DCFS sent ICWA notices
(form ICWA-030, Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian
Child) regarding Abraham, by certified mail with return receipt
requested, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Cherokee Nation, the
Eastern Band of Cherokee, and the United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokee. The notices and the certified mail receipts are
                                                       6
attached to the Disposition Report referenced above.

      6
       In this appeal, Father does not contend the ICWA notices
were missing information, or were not sent to all potentially
applicable tribes, or were defective in any other way.

                                9
         Father was present via Webex at the August 31, 2022
disposition hearing for Abraham, and he was represented by
counsel. The juvenile court removed Abraham from Father,
granted Father virtual and telephonic visitation, and denied
reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) (the
parent has been convicted of a violent felony) and subdivision
(e)(1) (services would be detrimental to the child due to the
parent’s incarceration). The court scheduled a section 366.26
permanency planning hearing for Abraham. As reflected in the
minute order for the hearing, the court also made an ICWA
finding as to Abraham, stating: “DCFS has complied with its
statutory obligation under WIC [Welf. & Inst. Code, §] 224.2 &
CRC [California Rules of Court, rule] 5.481(a) and based on the
inquiry, the court has no reason to believe ICWA applies as to
Mother/Father/Minor.”
       In a Last Minute Information for the Court filed on
November 9, 2022, DCFS reported that it had received letters
from the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee, and
the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, indicating Isabella
(Abraham’s half sibling) is not a member of a tribe or band and is
not eligible for membership. DCFS attached the letters to the
report and requested the juvenile court make an ICWA finding as
to Mother, Thomas G., and Isabella. The record before us does
not include return receipts or letters from any tribe or band
                      7
relating to Abraham. DCFS also reported that Isabella and

      7
        DCFS attached return receipts to its report filed on
November 9, 2022. As the parties point out in their appellate
briefing, these return receipts relate to a different case, as they
are from the Blackfeet tribe in addition to the Cherokee Nation

                                 10
Abraham had been in their foster care placement since April
2018, and their foster mother had been identified as the
prospective adoptive parent for both children.
      At a hearing on December 1, 2022, the juvenile court
continued the section 366.26 hearing and stated the following
regarding ICWA, in pertinent part: “The court will note that on
August 31, 2022, ICWA findings were made with respect to
[Father]. The court finds that [DCFS] has complied with section
224.2 and [California Rules of Court, rule] 5.482(a), and based on
the totality of the information, including the Last Minute
Information that was filed on November 9, 2022, the court has no
reason to believe the Indian Child Welfare Act applies as to
[Mother] or [Thomas G.].”
      In an Addendum Report, filed on March 9, 2023, DCFS
summarized its ICWA inquiry and notice (with the events
detailed above) and updated the juvenile court with new
information. Through a CLEAR public records search, the
dependency investigator located Father’s mother’s brother A.R.
(Abraham’s paternal great-uncle). A.R. stated there was no
Native American ancestry in his family. In the same Addendum
Report, DCFS recommended the juvenile court select adoption as
the permanent plan for Abraham and Isabella.
        On March 13, 2023, the juvenile court proceeded with the
section 366.26 hearing. Father was present via Webex from his
place of incarceration, and he was represented by counsel.
Regarding ICWA, the court stated: “The court made ICWA
findings on December 1, 2022. [¶] The court is also considering

and bands, and they list a different juvenile court case number.
No one in this case referenced possible ancestry with the
Blackfeet tribe.

                                11
the Addendum Report filed March 9, 2023, and the court finds
that [DCFS] has complied with its obligation under section 224.2
and CRC [California Rules of Court, rule] 5.481(a). And based on
the totality of the information provided, the court has no reason
to believe that the Indian Child Welfare Act applies as to
[Mother], [Thomas G.], or [Father], or the minors.” The court
terminated parental rights of the three parents, finding no
exception applied, and selected adoption as the appropriate
permanent plan for Abraham and Isabella, with the caregiver
designated as the prospective adoptive parent. The court found
by clear and convincing evidence that the children were
adoptable.
                           DISCUSSION
I.     Applicable Law
        Under ICWA, an “Indian child” is an unmarried person
under 18 years of age who is (1) a member of a federally
recognized Indian tribe or (2) is eligible for membership in a
federally recognized tribe and is the biological child of a member
of a federally recognized tribe. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) & (8); see
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal
definitions].)
        DCFS and the juvenile court “have an affirmative and
continuing duty to inquire whether a child” involved in
dependency proceedings “is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2,
subd. (a).) “At the first appearance in court of each party, the
court shall ask each participant present in the hearing whether
the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an
Indian child” (§ 224.2, subd. (c)) and order the parents to
complete form ICWA-020 (Parental Notification of Indian
Status). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).) The court

                                12
shall also “instruct the parties to inform the court if they
subsequently receive information that provides reason to know
the child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (c).) Under certain
circumstances, as part of its initial inquiry, DCFS is required to
seek information about the child’s possible Native American
ancestry from others, including extended family members. (§
224.2, subd. (b).)
       If the juvenile court or social worker “has reason to believe
that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding,” based on the
initial inquiry described above, the court or social worker “shall
make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the
child,” including, but not limited to: (1) interviewing the parents
and extended family members; (2) contacting the BIA and the
State Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying
and contacting tribes; and (3) contacting tribes and others “that
may reasonably be expected to have information regarding the
child’s membership status or eligibility.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).)
There is reason to believe a child is an Indian child if there is
information suggesting that either the child or the parent is a
member or may be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.
(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(1).) “Information suggesting membership or
eligibility for membership includes, but is not limited to,
information that indicates, but does not establish, the existence
of one or more of the grounds for reason to know enumerated in
paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (d),” which we set
forth below. (Ibid.)
       ICWA notice is required if DCFS or the juvenile court
knows or has reason to know a child is an Indian child under any
of the circumstances described in section 224.2, subdivision (d).
(25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 224.2, subd. (f) &

                                 13
224.3, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b)(1).) Under
subdivision (d), “There is reason to know a child involved in a
proceeding is an Indian child under any of the following
circumstances:
       “(1) A person having an interest in the child, including the
child, an officer of the court, a tribe, an Indian organization, a
public or private agency, or a member of the child’s extended
family informs the court that the child is an Indian child.
       “(2) The residence or domicile of the child, the child’s
parents, or Indian custodian is on a reservation or in an Alaska
Native village.
       “(3) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court,
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court
that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an
Indian child.
       “(4) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the
court reason to know that the child is an Indian child.
       “(5) The court is informed that the child is or has been a
ward of a tribal court.
       “(6) The court is informed that either parent or the child
possess an identification card indicating membership or
citizenship in an Indian tribe.” (§ 224.2, subd. (d).)
II.    Analysis
       A.     The Initial Inquiry
       Father argues the initial ICWA inquiry of him was
inadequate because he “was present at the December 20, 2021
hearing but the juvenile court did not inquire as to potential
Native American ancestry.” Father is correct that the juvenile
court did not comply with section 224.2, subdivision (c), because
the court did not inquire whether Father “knows or has reason to

                                 14
know that the child is an Indian child,” and the court did not
instruct Father to inform the court if he “subsequently receive[d]
information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian
child.” Nor did the court order Father to complete form ICWA-
020 (Parental Notification of Indian Status). (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).) This initial inquiry error by the court was
harmless in light of DCFS’s ICWA inquiry.
        As set forth above, DCFS inquired of Father about
possible Native American ancestry in his family. Father
informed the dependency investigator that he believed he had
Native American Ancestry with the “Yaqui Tribe,” but he was
unsure which side of his family had such ancestry. He told the
investigator that his sister L.M. would be able to provide
additional information. The investigator contacted L.M.,
Abraham’s paternal uncle M.M., and Abraham’s paternal great-
aunt who had raised Father. The investigator asked these family
members about possible Native American ancestry, and none
could confirm Father’s belief about Yaqui ancestry or suggest
another possible tribal affiliation. The investigator followed up
with Father, sending a letter to his place of incarceration asking
for contact information for other relatives who could provide
additional information about his claim of possible Native
American ancestry. Father provided no such information. The
investigator conducted a CLEAR public records search to find
other relatives and located Abraham’s paternal great-uncle A.R.,
who stated there was no Native American ancestry in his family.
       A failure of the duty of inquiry is not prejudicial and does
not require a conditional reversal of the order terminating
parental rights unless “the record indicates that there was
readily obtainable information that was likely to bear

                                15
meaningfully upon whether the child is an Indian child.” (In re
Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) The record shows
that the juvenile court’s inquiry error was not prejudicial. DCFS
made the ICWA inquiry of Father, and he provided information
in response, which DCFS pursued. DCFS followed up with
Father, asking for additional information, and Father provided
no response. Thus, the record indicates Father had no additional
information about his possible Native American ancestry that he
could have provided to the court. Father does not argue any
other inadequacy in the initial ICWA inquiry, other than the
juvenile court’s failure to make an inquiry at the December 20,
2021 hearing.
       B.    ICWA Notice
       Father contends the matter must be remanded to the
juvenile court because DCFS did not provide the court with
return receipts or responses from the tribes (to the extent there
were responses from the tribes) to the ICWA notices it sent
regarding Abraham. He asserts that without these documents,
the ICWA notice was inadequate.
       DCFS argues in the respondent’s brief that notice to the
tribes of the dependency proceedings was not required here
because there is no reason to know Abraham is an Indian child
under any of the circumstances set forth in section 224.2.
subdivision (d), listed above; and reason to know triggers the
notice requirement, as set forth in section 224.2, subdivision (f)
and section 224.3, subdivision (a). Father did not file a reply
brief on appeal, so he did not respond to this argument. In his
opening brief, he does not argue there is a reason to know
Abraham is an Indian child (or even a reason to believe Abraham
is an Indian child under § 224.2, subd. (e)).

                                16
       We need not address the merits of Father’s contention that
ICWA notice was inadequate because any defect in notice could
not have been prejudicial here. Assuming there was a reason to
know Abraham is an Indian child based on his maternal
grandmother’s claim of Cherokee ancestry in her family, and
therefore ICWA notice was required, the letters from the
Cherokee nation and bands stating half sibling Isabella (Mother’s
daughter) is not a member of a tribe or band and is not eligible
for membership logically compel the same conclusion as to
Abraham’s status with the Cherokee Nation and bands. As to
Father’s claim of possible Native American ancestry in his family,
DCFS and the juvenile court received no information “suggesting
that” Father or Abraham “is a member or may be eligible for
membership in an Indian tribe.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The
speculative statements of Father and his relatives did not provide
a reason to believe, let alone a reason to know, that Abraham is
an Indian child; and Father does not argue otherwise. Because
ICWA notice was not required based on Father’s claim of Native
American ancestry, any defects in notice as to the Pascua Yaqui
Tribe “were legally irrelevant.” (In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th
1068, 1084.)
       C.    The Juvenile Court’s ICWA Findings
       Finally, Father asserts “the juvenile court did not make a
final ruling regarding the applicability of ICWA in Abraham’s
case,” and he argues “the matter should be remanded to the
juvenile court to make final ICWA findings with respect to
Abraham, [Father], and [Mother].”
       In his opening brief in this appeal, Father mistakenly
states the juvenile court only made an ICWA finding in half
sibling Isabella’s case, and not in Abraham’s case. He references

                               17
a minute order from the December 1, 2022 hearing, which
includes an ICWA finding regarding Mother and Thomas G.
Father fails to acknowledge, however, that the court had
previously made an ICWA finding in Abraham’s case on August
31, 2022, at the disposition hearing Father attended virtually
after his successful section 388 petition, and after DCFS made its
ICWA inquiry. The minute order from this August 31, 2022
hearing, which relates only to Abraham’s case and not Isabella’s,
states: “DCFS has complied with its statutory obligation under
WIC [Welf. & Inst. Code §,] 224.2 & CRC [California Rules of
Court, rule] 5.481(a) and based on the inquiry, the court has no
reason to believe ICWA applies as to Mother/Father/Minor.” The
court referenced the August 31, 2022 ICWA finding on the record
at the December 1, 2022 hearing Father references, and
reiterated its ICWA finding in Abraham’s case on the record at
the March 13, 2023 hearing when it terminated Father’s parental
rights. Based on the foregoing, we reject Father’s assertion that
the matter should be remanded for an ICWA finding in
Abraham’s case, as the court already made such a finding.
Father raises no grounds for disturbing the finding.
                           DISPOSITION
      The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.            WEINGART, J.

                               18