Court Opinion

ID: 9381751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 17:02:45.405626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.922709
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/23/23 In re R.R. CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 In re R.R., a Person Coming                                  2d Juv. No. B322376
 Under the Juvenile Court                                 (Super. Ct. No. 21JV00202)
 Law.                                                       (Santa Barbara County)

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
 CHILD WELFARE
 SERVICES,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 ROBERT R. et al.,

      Defendants and Appellants.

      T.P. (Mother) and Robert R. (Father) appeal from the
juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to their

                                                    1
son, R.R. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) They contend the case
should be remanded for compliance with the inquiry
requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25
U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related provisions of California law
(§ 224.2). Respondent, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare
Services (CWS), concedes it did not comply with its duty of
further inquiry. We conditionally affirm the judgment and
remand for further proceedings.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In May 2021, CWS petitioned the juvenile court to detain
R.R. R.R. was placed with the mother of R.R.’s paternal
half-brother.
       In the detention report, CWS reported that it questioned
both parents regarding their Indian ancestry. Mother stated her
paternal great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee Indian
from Oklahoma. Mother did not provide other information
regarding the family’s Indian ancestry and did not know her
great grandmother’s name. She provided the name of her father
and state of residence but not his phone number. Father initially
stated he was “full[-]blood[ed] Chumash Indian from the Santa
Ynez Tribe,” but later clarified that his uncle was married to
someone with Chumash ancestry. He said there was no Indian
ancestry in his blood family. Father also provided his father’s
name, disclosed that he lived with his paternal grandfather, and
provided his home address.
       At the detention hearing, Mother said her father’s “great
grandmother or maybe one further than great grandmother is a
full-blooded Cherokee.” Mother said she would call her aunt for

     1Further unspecified statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                2
more information and report the information to CWS. Father
again denied Indian ancestry. He filed a Parental Notification of
Indian Status form (ICWA-020) declaring that none of the factors
indicating Indian status applied.
       In June 2021, CWS filed an amended petition. It attached
a form indicating it completed its initial inquiry by asking
Mother and Father about R.R.’s Indian status and that CWS had
reason to believe the child is or may be an Indian child. CWS
also indicated it contacted the relevant tribes.
       In the jurisdiction/disposition report, CWS reported it
mailed Mother an ICWA questionnaire via certified mail in early
June 2021. The report included a section titled “Social
Study/Family Assessment,” which stated that Mother maintains
a good relationship with her father, who moved to Oklahoma, and
that she communicates with him often. In a section titled
“Consideration [o]f Relative Placements,” CWS reported that it
conducted a family finding search using an online service and
found four maternal relatives and nine paternal relatives. CWS
sent letters to each relative. The report did not include a copy of
the letter nor include any information about inquiry into R.R.’s
possible Indian ancestry.
       At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court
sustained the allegations in the amended petition and ordered
reunification services for Mother and Father. In the six-month
review report, CWS recommended the juvenile court terminate
family reunification for both parents and set a section 366.26
hearing. It included no new information regarding ICWA. At the
six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated
reunification services for both parents and set a section 366.26
hearing.

                                3
       The section 366.26 report recommended the juvenile court
terminate Mother and Father’s parental rights and select
adoption as the permanent plan. It also recommended the court
find ICWA not applicable to R.R. CWS included an ICWA
matrix, reporting that it mailed Mother an ICWA questionnaire
and contacted Mother multiple times in June 2021 and January
and February 2022 without receiving a response.
       CWS also reported sending ICWA inquiries and family
trees to the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in
Oklahoma, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The inquiries
and family trees listed Mother, Father, and R.R., but it omitted
maternal grandfather’s name and his state of residence
(Oklahoma).
       CWS received responses from all entities except for the
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Cherokee
Nation reported that neither Mother or Father nor R.R. were
registered as Cherokee tribal citizens and that R.R. was not an
Indian child pursuant to ICWA. The representative stated that
“[a]ny incorrect or omitted information could invalidate this
determination.” The BIA reported that the notice from CWS
contained “insufficient information to determine Tribal
affiliation.” The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians responded
that based on the information it received from CWS, R.R. was not
registered or eligible to register as a member of its tribe.
       At the initial section 366.26 hearings, the juvenile court
found ICWA did not apply to R.R. The juvenile court then
terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights and selected
adoption as the permanent plan.

                                4
                            DISCUSSION
       Mother and Father contend the case should be remanded
because CWS did not fulfill its duty of initial inquiry (§ 224.2,
subd. (b)) when it failed to interview any extended family
members about R.R.’s possible Indian ancestry. CWS argues it
completed its initial inquiry but concedes the case should be
remanded because it did not fulfill its duties of further inquiry
(id. at subd. (e)). We agree the case must be remanded to ensure
CWS and the juvenile court comply with its duties of initial and
further inquiry.
       An “Indian child” under ICWA is a child who either is a
“member of an Indian tribe” or “is eligible for membership in an
Indian tribe” because they are the biological child of a tribe
member. (25 U.S.C § 1903; see also § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting
federal definition].) CWS and the trial court have an “affirmative
and continuing duty to inquire whether a child . . . is or may be
an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) This duty “can be divided
into three phases: the initial duty to inquire, the duty of further
inquiry, and the duty to provide formal ICWA notice.” (In re D.F.
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558, 566.)
       Initial inquiry requires a child services agency to “ask[ ] the
child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family
members, [and any] others who have an interest in the child . . .
whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd.
(b).) Extended family includes the child’s grandparents, aunts
and uncles, siblings, siblings-in-law, nieces and nephews, first
and second cousins, and stepparents. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2);
§ 224.1, subd. (c).) The initial inquiry also requires the juvenile
court to ask each participant present at the first hearing whether
they “know[ ] or [have] reason to know that [a] child is an Indian

                                  5
child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (c); see also California Rules of Court, rule
5.481(a)(2)(A).)
       If the initial inquiry leads to information that gives the
juvenile court or the child services agency “reason to believe” the
child is or may be an Indian child, the court or agency “shall
make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the
child . . . as soon as practicable.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).)
       We review whether the inquiry requirements were met for
substantial evidence. (In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068,
1079-1080; In re J.K. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 498, 504 (J.K.).)
“The duty to develop information concerning whether a child is
an Indian child rests with the court and the [child services
agency], not the parents or members of the parents’ families.” (In
re Antonio R. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 421, 430 (Antonio R.).) If the
child services agency and juvenile court “fail[] to satisfy their
statutorily-mandated duties under section 224.2, the matter must
be remanded to remedy this error” unless “the record
‘affirmatively reflects that the protections intended to be afforded
through the exercise of that duty have been provided.’
[Citation.]” (J.K., supra, at p. 507; see also Antonio R., supra, at
p. 435 [failure to discharge duty of inquiry under ICWA results in
prejudicial error].)
       CWS’s “first-step inquiry duty under ICWA and state law
was broader, requiring it also to interview, among others,
extended family members and others who had an interest in the
child.” (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; see also J.K.,
supra, 83 Cal.App.5th at p. 507 [initial duties of inquiry were
unsatisfied when CWS failed to ask extended family members
about the child’s potential Indian status]; Antonio R., supra, 76
Cal.App.5th at p. 432 [although the mother denied Indian

                                 6
ancestry, the juvenile court erred by concluding the department
conducted adequate inquiry because it failed to inquire about
maternal extended family members].)
       Here, there is no substantial evidence that CWS and the
juvenile court fulfilled its duty of initial inquiry. The record
reflects Father was the only person CWS contacted to inquire
about R.R.’s possible Indian ancestry on the paternal side of the
family. After Father said he did not have Indian ancestry, CWS’s
inquiry of paternal relatives ended there. But CWS’s duty of
inquiry was not absolved simply because Father denied Indian
ancestry. (In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554.) Father
provided his father’s name, told CWS he lived with his
grandfather, and provided his grandfather’s address. CWS also
had the contact information for R.R.’s half-brother and
communicated with the half-brother’s mother who took care of
R.R. during the dependency proceedings. Yet CWS made no
attempts to ask these extended family members/persons who had
an interest in R.R. about R.R.’s Indian ancestry.
       Moreover, the record is unclear if CWS contacted more
than a dozen of Mother and Father’s extended family members
but failed to inquire about R.R.’s Indian ancestry. CWS found
four maternal family members and nine paternal family
members in an online family search and sent letters to each
person. But the record does not reflect that they were asked
about R.R.’s potential Indian ancestry. Notably, the record does
not indicate how each family member is related to Mother and
Father and whether they qualify as “extended family” as
statutorily defined. (§§ 224.1, subd. (c), 224.2, subd. (b) & 25
U.S.C. § 1903(2).) Nor does the record show if CWS made any
successful contact with these relatives.

                                7
      In any event, the parties agree the matter must be
remanded because CWS and the juvenile court did not fulfill its
duties of further inquiry. Based on Mother’s assertion of
Cherokee ancestry, CWS had reason to believe R.R. may have
been an Indian child. It was thus required to conduct further
inquiry. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) In conducting further inquiry,
CWS’s duties include interviewing extended family members and
sharing all information necessary for a membership or eligibility
determination by the appropriate tribes. (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A),
(C).)
      But when it contacted the relevant Indian tribes and the
BIA, CWS omitted information regarding the maternal
grandfather, including his name and state of residence
(Oklahoma). Therefore, CWS did not fulfill its duty because it
sent incomplete information to the Indian tribes and the BIA.
Such error was prejudicial, and the matter must be remanded to
allow CWS to complete the information regarding R.R.’s extended
family. (Antonio R., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 435; J.K., supra, 83
Cal.App.5th at p. 507.) Information necessary for a tribe to
conduct membership or an eligibility determination includes
information regarding the maternal grandfather, but also
includes information, if any, that CWS may obtain upon its
investigation of R.R.’s extended family members.
                           DISPOSITION
      The August 12, 2022, order terminating parental rights is
conditionally affirmed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile
court for the limited purpose of allowing CWS and the juvenile
court to comply with the inquiry requirements of section 224.2.
The juvenile court is directed to order CWS to inquire of Mother
and Father’s available extended family members of R.R.’s Indian

                                 8
ancestry and report the efforts and results of that inquiry to the
court. The juvenile court is also directed to order CWS to provide
further information, including information about maternal
grandfather and, if any, information it obtains from its
investigation with extended family members, to the identified
tribes and the BIA. The juvenile court shall make ICWA findings
at a noticed hearing. If the court finds ICWA inapplicable, the
August 12, 2022, order terminating parental rights shall remain
the order of the court. However, if the court determines that R.R.
is an Indian child, it shall vacate the termination order and
conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion,
including a new section 366.26 hearing that conforms with all
relevant provisions of ICWA and the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                                9
                  Gustavo E. Lavayen, Judge

            Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

                ______________________________

      Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant R.R. (Father).
      Lelah S. Fisher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant T.P. (Mother).
      Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.