Court Opinion

ID: 9942745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:04:20.111662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:24.000065
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/24 In re A.G. CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 In re A.G., et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL                                               G062737
 SERVICES AGENCY,
                                                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 21DP0817,
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     21DP0818)

           v.                                                       ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
                                                                    AND DENYING PETITION FOR
 J.K.,                                                              REHEARING; NO CHANGE IN
                                                                    JUDGMENT
      Defendant and Appellant.

                   It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed on January 31, 2024, be modified
as follows:
                   On page 2, the last sentence of footnote 2, beginning with “In light of our
ruling” between the words “order” and “as” insert “with respect to C.K. and L.K.” so that
the sentence reads as follows:
                   “In light of our ruling on J.K.’s appeal, we will conditionally reverse the
order with respect to C.K. and L.K. as to the mother also.”
           There is no change in the judgment.
           The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

                                            DELANEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                        2
Filed 1/31/24 In re A.G. CA 4/3 (unmodified opinion)

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 THREE

 In re A.G., et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL                                                  G062737
 SERVICES AGENCY,
                                                                       (Super. Ct. Nos. 21DP0817,
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        21DP0818)

           v.                                                          OPINION

 J.K.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert
Gerard, Judge. Conditionally reversed. Respondent’s motion to take additional
evidence. Granted.
                   Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
              No appearance for Minors.
                             *              *             *
              Father (J.K.) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his
parental rights and placing twins C.K. and L.K. (minors) for adoption following a
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (366.26 hearing).1 J.K. contends
the order should be reversed because respondent Orange County Social Services Agency
(SSA) failed to comply with its obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA). We conclude there was insufficient evidence to
sustain the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply. Rather, the record shows
SSA failed to satisfy its duty of further inquiry. Accordingly, we will conditionally
                                                                                        2
reverse and remand for the limited purpose of allowing SSA to comply with ICWA.
                                           FACTS
I.     Dependency Petitions
              On July 21, 2021, senior social worker Breeze Jeffries (SSW Jeffries) filed
an application for a protective custody warrant pursuant to section 340 to temporarily
remove the minors and their two older half siblings from their mother and fathers,
including J.K. The application alleged that although the mother denied any current drug
use, the minors were born positive for methamphetamine. J.K. had an extensive criminal
history and substance abuse history. The juvenile court granted a protective custody
warrant as to the minors, but denied it as to the half siblings.

1
             All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
unless otherwise stated.
2
              The mother also appealed from the order terminating parental rights over
the minors. After her counsel filed a brief stating no arguable issues can be found (see In
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), this court dismissed her appeal. In light of our
ruling on J.K.’s appeal, we will conditionally reverse the order as to the mother also.

                                                2
              On July 23, 2021, SSA filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300,
subdivision (b), alleging there was a substantial risk the minors would suffer serious
physical harm or illness by their parents’ inability to provide care due to mental illness or
substance abuse. The petition alleged that the mother and the minors tested positive at
birth for amphetamines, that the mother has ongoing mental health issues and unresolved
substance abuse problems, and that J.K. had unresolved substance abuse problems and a
history of mental health issues.
              At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found SSA made a prima facie
showing under section 319 and the minors came within section 300. It found J.K. the
presumed father of the minors. At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found true
the allegations in the petition, ordered the minors removed, and granted reunification
services to the parents.
              At the June 10, 2022 contested six-month review hearing, the court found
J.K.’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement of the
minors was minimal, and terminated his reunification services. At the December 9, 2022
contested twelve-month review hearing, it found the mother’s progress was minimal and
terminated her services. The court scheduled a 366.26 hearing on termination of parental
rights.
              After the 366.26 hearing, on May 31, 2023, the court terminated the
parental rights of the mother and J.K., and ordered the minors placed for adoption. On
July 23, 2023, J.K. noticed an appeal from the order terminating his parental rights.
A. ICWA Findings
              On July 21, 2021, the mother denied Native American Indian ancestry to
SSW Jeffries. On the ICWA-010 form, SSW Jeffries indicated the parents gave no
reason to believe the minors are or may be Indian children.

                                              3
                At the July 27, 2021 detention hearing, the parents denied Native American
Indian ancestry. The juvenile court found ICWA did not apply to the minors. At the
jurisdictional and disposition hearing, the court again found ICWA did not apply.
                In connection with the 12-month review hearing, SSA filed a report which
also addressed ICWA. Social service worker J’Amy Viers (SSW Viers) reported that on
August 9, 2022, the mother had denied any Native American ancestry in her family, but
the maternal grandfather stated his “mother was part Cherokee.” This information
resulted in the generation of an ICWA referral for all four children, including the minors,
the same day.
                In an addendum report prepared in connection with the ICWA referral, SSA
reported that on August 22, 2022, social worker Teresa Santoro (SW Santoro)
interviewed the maternal grandfather. He explained he was adopted and his adoptive
mother, the maternal great grandmother, had Cherokee ancestry. However, neither he nor
his mother is enrolled in a tribe. The maternal grandfather could not provide contact
information for relatives who might have further information. The following day, he
called SW Santoro and provided names, dates of birth, places of birth, and dates of death
for a number of additional relatives. Based on this information, SW Santoro concluded
there was a “[r]eason to [b]elieve” the children were Indian children and initiated an
ICWA referral.
                SW Santoro interviewed the parents, the maternal grandparents, and the
paternal grandmother. All denied Native American ancestry, except for the maternal
grandfather who stated the maternal great grandmother had Cherokee ancestry. SW
Santoro “[u]tilized the BIA and its resources for assistance in identifying” contact
information for the Cherokee tribes. She contacted the three federally recognized
Cherokee tribes. On August 24, 2022, the social worker sent an ICWA inquiry to the
Cherokee Nation by e-mail and certified mail. On August 26, 2022, ICWA Unit Clerk
Kelli Brown (Clerk Brown) sent an updated inquiry with additional family members’

                                             4
information by certified mail. On September 9, 2022, the Cherokee Nation responded
that “the child is not eligible for membership in the tribe.” (Italics added.)
              On August 24, 2022, Clerk Brown sent an ICWA inquiry by certified mail
to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
Indians in Oklahoma. On August 26, 2022, the social worker sent an updated inquiry.
The addendum report noted no response from either tribe as of December 8, 2022.
              Although the court read, considered, and accepted the various SSA reports,
including the addendum report on the ICWA referral, it made no ICWA finding at the 12-
month review hearing. Information on the ICWA referral was never included in any
subsequent report, including the report prepared for the 366.26 hearing.
              At the 366.26 hearing on May 19, 2023, SSW Viers testified about the
ICWA referral, noting it was in the “previous report.” She also stated that the ICWA
referral “came back negative” and “there hasn’t been any additional information from the
maternal family to give us other information.” Subsequently, the court stated that it
“spent numerous hours over the holiday weekend going back through all the reports” to
make its findings on various issues such as the parents’ visitation. It found, “based on a
review of the entire file, exhaustive review of the entire file and the most recent reports
. . . that ICWA does not apply.”
                                        DISCUSSION
I.     Applicable Law
              “[S]ection 224.2 creates three distinct duties regarding ICWA in
dependency proceedings. First, from [SSA]’s initial contact with a minor and his family,
the statute imposes a duty of inquiry to ask all involved persons whether the child may be
an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subds. (a) & (b).) Second, if that initial inquiry creates a
‘reason to believe’ the child is an Indian child, then [SSA] ‘shall make further inquiry
regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as
practicable.’ (Id., subd. (e), italics added.) Third, if that further inquiry results in a

                                                5
reason to know the child is an Indian child, then the formal notice requirements of section
224.3 apply. [Citations.]” (In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1052.)
               This case involves the adequacy of SSA’s further inquiry. Pursuant to
section 224.2, the required further inquiry includes, but is not limited to: (1)
“[i]nterviewing the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family members to gather the
information” (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A)); (2) “[c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the State Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying the names and
contact information of the tribes in which the child may be a member, or eligible for
membership in” (id., subd. (e)(2)(B)); and (3) “[c]ontacting the tribe or tribes and any
other person that may reasonably be expected to have information regarding the child’s
membership, citizenship status, or eligibility. Contact with a tribe shall, at a minimum,
include telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail contact to each tribe's designated agent
for receipt of notices . . . . Contact with a tribe shall include sharing information
identified by the tribe as necessary for the tribe to make a membership or eligibility
determination, as well as information on the current status of the child and the case.”
(Id., subd. (e)(2)(C).)
               “On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings for substantial
evidence. [Citations.] But where the facts are undisputed, we independently determine
whether ICWA’s requirements have been satisfied.” (In re D.S., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1051.) In this court, “SSA and the court’s failure to comply with its duties under
ICWA is presumed to be prejudicial.” (In re E.V. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 691, 700.)
II.    Analysis
               The sole issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the
juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply. J.K. attacks the court’s finding on
two grounds. First, he contends SSA’s failure to include evidence of its further inquiry in
the section 366.26 report deprived the court of any evidence from which it could make an
informed ICWA finding. Second, he contends that even if the further inquiry evidence

                                              6
had been submitted, it was insufficient to sustain the court’s finding because the evidence
only related to a half sibling of the minors. We address each issue in turn.
              In this case, SSA found a reason to believe the minors were Indian children
based on the maternal grandfather’s statement that the maternal great grandmother had
Cherokee ancestry. SSA conducted a further inquiry, including contacting the three
federally recognized Cherokee tribes. SSA documented its further inquiry in an
addendum report to the 12-month review hearing report. The information concerning the
further inquiry was not repeated or referenced in the section 366.26 report or any later
report. At the 366.26 hearing, SSW Viers referenced the further inquiry and its result,
but did not provide any specific details.
              On this record, we conclude SSA failed to comply with its obligations
under California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5) (rule 5.481(a)(5)), which requires that
SSA “on an ongoing basis include in its filings a detailed description of all [ICWA]
inquiries, and further inquiries it has undertaken and all information received pertaining
to the child’s Indian status.” (Italics added.) SSA should have included the information
about the further inquiry in the section 366.26 report. (See In re Josiah T. (2021) 71
Cal.App.5th 388, 407 [failure to include further inquiry of paternal grandfather in the
section 366.26 report and three addenda violated requirements of rule 5.481(a)(5)].)
Nevertheless, the error was harmless because the court expressly stated that it had
reviewed the entire case file to make its ICWA finding. Given that the same judge has
presided over the case from its inception, we conclude the failure to include information
of the ICWA referral in the section 366.26 report did not deprive “the juvenile court of
the information it needed to make informed rulings as to whether [SSA’s] inquiry was
adequate and whether ICWA applied.” (In re Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 407.)
              Next, J.K. contends the information on the further inquiry provided in the
12-month review report and its addendum was insufficient to sustain the court’s ICWA
finding. Before analyzing this claim, we must address SSA’s motion to take additional

                                             7
evidence pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909. In its motion, SSA requests
this court accept and consider evidence that all three Cherokee tribes responded to its
ICWA inquiry in September 2022, and they state that a half sibling of the minors was not
an Indian child. SSA argues this evidence will (1) correct the misstatement in the
addendum report that two of the three Cherokee tribes had not responded, (2) confirm the
tribes received the inquiries, and (3) support the juvenile court’s finding on ICWA. We
will grant the motion because the additional evidence clarifies the information presented
in the addendum report on SSA’s further inquiry. (See In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th
832, 843 [“Code of Civil Procedure section 909 allows appellate courts to ‘accept
evidence in dependency cases “to expedite just and final resolution for the benefit of the
children involved.”’ [Citation.]”].)
              However, the augmented record does not provide clarity in favor of
affirming here. Section 224.2, subdivision (e)(2)(c) requires that ‘[c]ontact with a tribe
shall include sharing information identified by the tribe as necessary for the tribe to make
a membership or eligibility determination, as well as information on the current status of
the child and the case.” (Italics added.) The addendum report on SSA’s further inquiry,
which the trial court likely relied upon in making its ICWA finding, reported inquiries to
the three Cherokee tribes “regarding the child’s membership or eligibility status.” (Italics
added.) On this report, one would believe SSA’s ICWA inquiry was to the minors. The
augmented record, however, does not contain e-mail(s) and/or document(s) submitted to
the tribes regarding the minors. Instead, the additional evidence submitted by SSA to this
court indicates the tribal contacts did not relate to the minors, but only to the minor’s half
       3
sibling. Thus there is insufficient evidence to establish that SSA provided the required

3
               Although we appreciate SSA’s argument that a tribal determination in
respect to the minors’ maternal half sibling should apply to the minors, SSA cites to no
authority allowing us to accept a tribal letter that is unresponsive to the minors at issue in
this appeal.

                                              8
information to the tribes about the minors, including “information about the current status
of the child and the case.” Based on the augmented record, SSA failed to comply with its
further inquiry obligations with respect to the minors.
              This court has adopted a “clear rule that requires reversal” in all cases
where ICWA inquiry rules were not followed. (See In re A.R. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th
197, 207 [initial inquiry]; In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15, 32 [further inquiry].)
Following our prior precedents, the judgment terminating parental rights must be
conditionally reversed and the matter remanded for compliance with ICWA. (See In re
E.V., supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 701; In re A.R., supra, 77 Cal.App.5th p. 208.)
                                      DISPOSITION
              The judgment is conditionally reversed as to both parents, and remanded to
the juvenile court for the limited purpose of allowing SSA to comply with ICWA. After
complying with applicable inquiry and notice requirements, if it is determined that ICWA
does not apply, the court’s judgment shall be reinstated. County counsel’s request we
consider additional evidence is granted.

                                                  DELANEY, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                             9