Court Opinion

ID: 9901975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:02:22.948483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.378888
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 In re X.E. CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 In re X.E., a Person Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           E081896

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. J291427)

 v.                                                                      OPINION

 A.C.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,

Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.

         Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant A.C. (mother) appeals the termination of parental rights

to her daughter X.E. (the child) and argues respondent San Bernardino County Children

and Family Services (the agency) failed to comply with California law implementing the

Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) by not asking

available extended family members about the child’s possible Indian ancestry.1 The

agency argues it satisfied its duty of inquiry, and that any error was harmless. We

conditionally reverse and remand with directions.

                  II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS2

       In November 2021, the day after mother gave birth to the child and both tested

positive for amphetamines, a social worker spoke with mother and the maternal

grandmother, both of whom denied knowledge of any known Indian ancestry.

Subsequently, the agency obtained a juvenile detention warrant for the child and initiated

this dependency pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code3 section 300, subdivisions

(b)(1) and (g). Among other allegations, the petition included that mother has substance

abuse issues that negatively impact her ability to adequately parent the child. On

December 1, mother completed and filed a Judicial Council Forms, form ICWA-020,

       1 Because ICWA uses the term “Indian,” we will 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 We focus on those facts relevant to the ICWA issue raised on appeal.

       3 All further statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                             2
parental notification of Indian status, indicating she has no Indian ancestry as far as she

knows. She provided only the maternal grandmother’s contact information on the family

find and ICWA inquiry form.

       At the detention hearing, mother identified D.E. (who was incarcerated) as the

biological father and again denied having any Indian ancestry. The maternal

grandmother was also present and she denied having any Indian ancestry. The juvenile

court ordered D.E. to fill out an ICWA-020 form. The child was detained and

reunification services were ordered for mother.

       According to the jurisdiction/disposition report, the social worker again asked

about, and mother again denied, any Indian ancestry. Mother stated the maternal

grandparents are divorced but live in Yucaipa. The social worker was unable to

interview D.E., and the child remained hospitalized. In February 2022, the agency

informed the court that the child was placed in a confidential foster home while mother

continued to receive inpatient services to address her substance abuse issues. In a phone

interview with D.E., he acknowledged paternity and “denied ICWA.” On May 4, 2022,

the maternal grandmother once more denied Indian ancestry. By August 23, mother had

not visited the child for months, had not contacted the agency, and was not drug testing.

The social worker described mother’s prognosis as “poor given the lack of

communication and visitation.”

       At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing (which had been continued

several times), the juvenile court declared the child a dependent of the court, removed her

from mother’s physical custody, found D.E. to be an alleged father, and ordered

                                              3
reunification services and supervised visitation for mother. The court found ICWA was

inapplicable and authorized DNA testing with a paternal relative. On October 19, 2022,

the agency informed the court that D.E. is the biological father of the child.

       On March 2, 2023, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services

and set a section 366.26 hearing. In the section 366.26 report, the agency provided a list

of its ICWA inquiries, and noted that mother, father, maternal grandmother, and paternal

grandfather denied any Indian ancestry. On August 3, 2023, the agency again made an

ICWA inquiry of the maternal grandmother and obtained the name of a maternal uncle,

J.C.

       On August 9, 2023, the agency called the social worker to testify as to “her efforts

to reach a couple relatives regarding ICWA.” The maternal grandmother testified that

she was not aware of the maternal grandfather having any Indian ancestry, and she did

not have any such ancestry. She stated that she has five brothers and none have

American Indian heritage; however, mother’s younger brother (a half sibling) is from the

Pima Maricopa tribe. The maternal grandmother did not inform the agency about the

maternal uncle’s ancestry because he and mother have different fathers. After finding

ICWA does not apply, the juvenile court terminated parental rights.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Mother faults the agency for failing to make an ICWA inquiry of—let alone

identify and locate—the family members mentioned by the maternal grandmother at the

section 366.26 hearing. She asserts that if the agency “did in fact conduct appropriate

inquiries pursuant to the ICWA, [it] failed to report those efforts.” The agency argues it

                                             4
satisfied its duty of inquiry and, regardless, any alleged failure to inquire of these

relatives should be considered harmless error. We are not persuaded by the agency’s

argument.

       “ICWA establishes minimum federal standards that a state court must follow

before removing Indian children from their families. [Citation.] California law

implementing ICWA also imposes requirements to protect the rights of Indian children,

their families, and their tribes. (See §§ 224-224.6; [citation].) An Indian child is any

unmarried person under 18 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); see § 224.1, subd. (b).)

       “‘Because it typically is not self-evident whether a child is an Indian child, both

federal and state law mandate certain inquiries to be made in each case.’ [Citation.] [The

agency] and the juvenile court have an ‘affirmative and continuing duty to inquire’

whether a child in a dependency proceeding ‘is or may be an Indian child.’ (§ 224.2,

subd. (a).) The duty to inquire consists of two phases—the duty of initial inquiry and the

duty of further inquiry. [Citation.] ICWA also imposes a duty to provide notice of the

proceedings to the pertinent Indian tribes. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); § 224.3, subd. (a).)

Notice enables the tribes ‘to determine whether the child involved in a dependency

proceeding is an Indian child and, if so, whether to intervene in, or exercise jurisdiction

over, the matter.’ [Citation.]

       “The duty of initial inquiry applies in every dependency proceeding. [Citation.]

Federal regulations require state courts to ask each participant ‘at the commencement’ of

                                               5
a child custody proceeding ‘whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the

child is an Indian child.’ (25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a) (2022).) State law requires the court to

pursue an inquiry ‘[a]t the first appearance in court of each party’ by asking ‘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).) In addition, when [the agency]

takes a child into temporary custody, the agency must ask ‘the child, parents, legal

guardian, Indian custodian, extended family members, others who have an interest in the

child,’ and the reporting party whether the child is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2,

subd. (b).) Extended family members include adults who are the child’s stepparents,

grandparents, siblings, brothers- or sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and

first or second cousins. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); § 224.1, subd. (c).)” (In re Ricky R. (2022)

82 Cal.App.5th 671, 678-679, italics added (Ricky R.).)

       “When [the agency] fails to comply with the duty of initial inquiry under state law,

we will find the error to be prejudicial and conditionally reverse if ‘the record indicates

that there was readily obtainable information that was likely to bear meaningfully upon

whether the child is an Indian child.’” (Ricky R., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 679.)

       In this case, the agency failed to comply with its duty of initial inquiry by not

interviewing the maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, and the maternal grandmother’s

five brothers. The question we must answer is whether this failure should be considered

harmless error. There are different approaches to assessing harmlessness in the ICWA

context, and the issue is currently under review by our Supreme Court. (See In re Dezi C.

(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 777-782, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578) [deficient

                                              6
initial inquiry harmless unless record contains information suggesting a reason to believe

that the child may be an “Indian child” within the meaning of ICWA, such that the

absence of further inquiry was prejudicial to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding].) We

apply the approach we described in Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 739: We

will find prejudice when an agency “fail[s] to investigate readily obtainable information

tending to shed meaningful light on whether a child is an Indian child.” (Ibid.) “Under

Benjamin M.’s prejudice analysis, we do not speculate about whether the extended family

members might have information that suggests the child is an Indian child. [Citation.]

We instead ask whether ‘the information in the possession of extended relatives is likely

to be meaningful in determining whether the child is an Indian child—regardless of

whether the information ultimately shows the child is or is not an Indian child.’” (In re

D.B. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 239, 246-247.)

       According to the agency, “any failure to inquire of [maternal and paternal

extended] relatives is harmless error as there is no evidence in the record that an inquiry

of [these] relatives would have given reason to believe [the child] is a Native American

child.” However, this argument ignores the possibility of an interview with an extended

family member revealing such ancestry. (See In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554

[“parents may not know their possible relationship with or connection to an Indian

tribe”]; In re T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 289, fn. omitted [imposition of duty to

inquire broader than duty to provide ICWA notice “is premised on the commonsense

understanding that, over time, Indian families, particularly those living in major urban

centers like Los Angeles, may well have lost the ability to convey accurate information

                                             7
regarding their tribal status”].) The extended family members who may reveal Indian

ancestry include the maternal grandfather, maternal uncle, and the maternal

grandmother’s five brothers. The agency’s failure to interview them was prejudicial and

reversible. (Ricky R., supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 680.)

                                    III. DISPOSITION

       The order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed. On remand, the

juvenile court shall order the agency to make reasonable efforts to interview the maternal

grandfather and available maternal family members about the child’s Indian ancestry and

to report to the court the results of the investigation. Based on the information reported,

if the court determines that ICWA does not apply, then the court shall reinstate the order

terminating parental rights. If the court determines that ICWA applies, then it shall

proceed in conformity with ICWA and related California law.

       The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                           J.

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                               8