Court Opinion

ID: 9954211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 20:03:23.203306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:52.994438
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/25/24 In re G.A. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 G.A., a Person Coming                                  B327590 consolidated with
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                B329062
                                                             (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
                                                             19LJJP00192B)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

D.A.,

         Defendant and Appellant.
      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of the County of
Los Angeles, Jennifer W. Baronoff, Judge Pro Tempore.
Dismissed.
      Janelle B. Price, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Senior Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                     ______________________

                    I.    INTRODUCTION

      G.A., mother of D.A. (the child), appeals from the orders of
the juvenile court entered at the jurisdiction/disposition stage of
this proceeding, challenging only whether the Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) complied with its
duties of inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes
(Welf. & Inst. Code1 § 224 et seq.). We conclude the appeals are
moot.

1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code

                                 2
     II.     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A.         Detention and Petition

       On December 26, 2022, the Department received an
expedited referral alleging neglect of the child by mother who had
been arrested on a misdemeanor vandalism charge.
       On December 29, 2022, the Department filed a section 300
petition alleging that mother had a history of engaging in violent
and assaultive behaviors in the presence of the child, including
the incident that led to her vandalism arrest, and that her
behavior endangered the child. The Department also alleged that
mother failed to make an adequate plan for the care and
supervision of the child while she was incarcerated which further
endangered him. The social worker attached an ICWA-010(A)
form to the petition in which she stated that she had inquired
about the child’s Indian status and mother provided information
that gave the social worker reason to believe that the child was or
may be an Indian child.
       In connection with the December 30, 2022, detention
hearing, mother submitted an ICWA-020 form stating that the
child was or may be a member of an Indian tribe, namely,
“Cherokee.” At the hearing that day, the juvenile court
acknowledged mother’s claim of Cherokee heritage and directed
the Department to follow up with her and conduct a detailed
ICWA interview. The court then asked mother which of her
relatives had Cherokee heritage, and she said that she did not

2      Because mother raises only ICWA noncompliance on
appeal, this background section is limited to matters relevant to
that issue.

                                    3
know but confirmed that she was not registered with any tribe.
The court replied: “For now the court is finding it has no reason
to know or believe that the [ICWA] applies to the child through
either parent. However, [the Department] has an ongoing duty of
further inquiry and obligation to investigate these claims
throughout the pendency of the case. And the Department is to
interview [mother] specifically with regard to Native American
Heritage. [¶] . . . [¶] So the Department is to interview every
known relative on both maternal and paternal sides of the family
as well as any other participants as to any ancestry and prepare
a narrative for the next hearing.”

B.    Jurisdiction and Disposition

      In connection with the jurisdiction/disposition report, on
January 26, 2023, a social worker interviewed mother, who
stated that the child had “a lot of Cherokee heritage from his
father’s side of the family as his father’s mother was a chieftain’s
daughter.”3 But she confirmed that no member of her family on
either side was registered with a tribe and claimed that her
family had received services from “United American Indian
Involvement in Los Angeles . . . .” The social worker also

3      At the December 30, 2022, detention hearing, the juvenile
court found that Erik V. (father) was the alleged father of the
child.

                                 4
interviewed maternal grandmother and mother’s two adult
children,4 Anthony M. and Anisa M., each of whom denied any
Indian heritage. Anisa said, “‘[Mother] will claim that, but it is
not true.’”
       In a last minute information filed on February 10, 2023,
the Department included an excerpt from a report in an earlier
dependency proceeding that included ICWA information provided
by father. According to that excerpt, father told a social worker
in that earlier proceeding that “a great grandmother was full-
blooded Cherokee, and she lived on a reservation with her
husband, [father’s] great, great, uncle.” The excerpt also stated
that “paternal great aunt Nancy [O.] . . . reported that the
relative in question was her ‘grandfather’s mother but [the
Indian heritage is] very removed. She lived on the reservation
most of her life, and made her own clothes.’”
       The last minute information also stated that a social
worker interviewed father’s adult son, Anthony V., on
January 31, 2023, who reported that he had “been told by his
father that they had Cherokee or Blackfeet heritage, but that he
was not sure which it was.” The social worker also spoke to
father’s “maternal great aunt” who advised that “there [was] no
[N]ative American heritage in their family.”
       At the initial jurisdiction hearing on February 16, 2023, the
juvenile court asked maternal aunt, Kresta C., if anyone in her
family had Native American ancestry, if any of her relatives
received benefits from any tribes, or if any of her relatives ever
lived on a reservation. Kresta C. answered no to all three

4     Although the social worker was aware that mother had a
minor son, Jamie M., there is no indication in the record that he
was interviewed regarding the child’s Indian heritage.

                                 5
inquiries. The court issued, among others, an order suspending
mother’s visits5 and continued the matter for further discovery.
      On April 26, 2023, the juvenile court held a continued
jurisdiction/disposition hearing. During the hearing, the court
raised an issue with the Department’s counsel regarding ICWA
and maternal aunt Kresta C., but then indicated that the issue
was “something we can come back to.” The Department’s counsel
stated, “Yes . . . we can follow up,” and the court replied, “Okay.
At this point, though, the court has no reason to know or believe
that the [ICWA] applies.” The court sustained the petition,
removed the child from mother, ordered him suitably placed, and
granted mother monitored visits.
      On April 27, 2023, mother filed an appeal from the
jurisdiction and disposition orders (B329062).6

                       III.   DISCUSSION

       Mother challenges on appeal only whether the Department
satisfied its inquiry duties under ICWA; she raises no issues
about the juvenile court’s order temporarily suspending her
visits, the jurisdictional findings, or the disposition orders.
According to mother, the Department failed to comply with its
duty of initial inquiry by failing to interview the child’s sibling,
Jamie M.; and failed to comply with its duty of further inquiry by:

5     That same day, mother filed a notice of appeal (B327590),
but without specifying from which order she was appealing.

6     On August 11, 2023, we granted mother’s motion to
consolidate the appeal in case number B327590 with the appeal
in case number B329060.

                                 6
(1) relying on statements from maternal relatives contradicting
mother’s claims of Cherokee heritage and (2) failing to follow up
on information that her family members received services from
United American Indian Involvement.
       The Department argues, among other things, that the
appeal is moot because the inquiry duties under ICWA are
continuing obligations and therefore that any perceived
deficiencies in the Department’s compliance thus far can be
remedied during the normal course of the ongoing proceedings.
We agree.
       Given the procedural stage of this case, there will
necessarily be further proceedings at which mother’s complaints
of noncompliance can be raised and addressed by the juvenile
court in the first instance. We therefore conclude that mother’s
challenges are moot. (In re Baby Girl M. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th
635, 638–639; In re S.H. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 166, 179 [“So long
as proceedings are ongoing and all parties recognize the
continuing duty of ICWA inquiry, both [the Department] and the
juvenile court have an adequate opportunity to fulfill those
statutory duties”].) We have also considered the factors bearing
on discretionary review of moot questions as identified in In re
D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, at pages 286 through 287 and decline
to exercise our discretion here.

                                7
                      IV.   DISPOSITION

     The consolidated appeals are dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        KIM. J.

We concur:

             BAKER, Acting P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                               8