Court Opinion

ID: 9889231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 23:03:13.822978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:13.043215
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/6/23 In re Hailey T. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

 In re Hailey T. et al., Persons                                B327958
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.                                                           (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP01554)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 CHASTITY B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Tara L. Newman, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
             ____________________________________

                       INTRODUCTION

       This is Chastity B.’s third appeal from orders terminating
her parental rights to her children. In her previous appeals she
contended, among other things, the juvenile court and the
Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
failed to comply with their inquiry and notice obligations under
the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA)
and related California law. In each of those appeals, we directed
the juvenile court to ensure the Department complied fully with
those obligations. (See In re Gabriella H. (B315796, June 12,
2023) [nonpub. opn.] (Gabriella H. II); In re Gabriella H.
(B313276, Aug. 12, 2022) [nonpub. opn.] (Gabriella H. I).)
       Chastity again appeals from an order under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.261 terminating her parental rights
to two of her five children, Hailey T. and Ramon T., Jr. (Ramon).
Chastity argues the juvenile court erred in finding that there was
no reason to believe or know Hailey and Ramon were Indian
children and that therefore the provisions of ICWA did not apply.
We conclude the juvenile court and the Department have now
complied with their obligations under ICWA. Therefore, we
affirm.

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

                                2
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      A.      The Juvenile Court Sustains Petitions on Behalf of
              Hailey and Ramon
       Chastity is the mother of Hailey and Ramon, as well as
three older children who are not involved in this appeal.
Ramon T., Sr. is the father of Hailey and Ramon; he is not
involved in this appeal either.
       In February 2021 the juvenile court sustained a petition on
behalf of 11-month-old Hailey under section 300, subdivisions (a),
(b), and (j). Among other allegations, the Department alleged
that Chastity and Ramon T. had a history of violent altercations
and that Chastity used illicit drugs while pregnant with Hailey.
In May 2021 the juvenile court declared Hailey a dependent child
of the court and removed her from her parents. On December 10,
2021 the court terminated reunification services for the parents
and scheduled a permanency planning hearing under section
366.26.
       Ramon was born in October 2021 with a positive toxicology
screen for marijuana. On February 1, 2022 the juvenile court
sustained a petition on his behalf under section 300,
subdivisions (b), (d), and (j). On March 1, 2022 the court declared
Ramon a dependent child of the court, removed him from his
parents, and denied reunification services.

      B.    Ramon T.’s Sister Indicates Hailey May Have Indian
            Ancestry, and the Department Fails To Comply with
            Its Notice and Inquiry Obligations Under ICWA
      Chastity and Ramon T. filed ICWA-020 forms in connection
with the detention hearing for Hailey stating they had no known

                                 3
Indian ancestry. The juvenile court at that time found it had no
reason to know Hailey was an Indian child.
       As described in Gabriella H. I, Hailey’s paternal aunt,
Vanessa T., told a dependency investigator Hailey’s paternal
great-grandfather “came from the Yaqui tribe, but he was not
registered with the tribe.” Vanessa did not know the paternal
great-grandfather’s name and did not have any additional
information about him, but she gave the investigator the name
(Norma T.) and phone number of the paternal great-grandfather’s
sister. Vanessa also gave the investigator the names and birth
dates (but not birth years) of Hailey’s paternal grandfather (who
was deceased) and paternal grandmother, as well as the place
where the paternal grandfather died. The investigator called and
left a message for Norma, but she did not respond. The record
did not indicate at that time whether the Department attempted
to contact Hailey’s paternal grandmother.
       The investigator sent ICWA-030 notices on behalf of Hailey
to the Pascua Yaqui tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
notices included the name and address of Hailey’s father and the
names of Hailey’s paternal grandparents, but not their partial
birth dates, their birth places, or the former address for Hailey’s
paternal grandfather. On August 20, 2020 the Pascua Yaqui
tribe notified the Department that Chastity, Hailey, and Ramon
were not members of the tribe and did not have applications for
membership pending. Based on the information the Department
provided, the Pascua Yaqui tribe concluded Hailey was not
eligible for membership in the tribe, and the juvenile court found
at the disposition hearing there was no reason to know Hailey
was an Indian child.

                                4
      Chastity and Ramon T. appealed from the disposition order
arguing, among other things, the Department did not comply
with the inquiry and notice requirements of ICWA and related
California law. We agreed and directed the trial court to ensure
the Department complied fully with ICWA and related California
law, including by contacting Hailey’s paternal grandmother and
providing complete and proper notice to the Pascua Yaqui tribe.
(Gabriella H. I, supra, B313276.)

     C.      The Department Concedes It Failed To Comply with
             ICWA Regarding Ramon
       Meanwhile, at the February 1, 2022 jurisdiction hearing on
the petition regarding Ramon, the juvenile court found, based on
a notice from the Pascua Yaqui tribe stating Ramon was not
eligible for membership, the court had no reason to believe or
know Ramon was an Indian child. That notice was based on the
same deficient information the Department provided the tribe
regarding Hailey. On appeal from an order denying a section 388
petition, the Department conceded the juvenile court failed to
ensure the Department conducted an adequate inquiry under
ICWA and related California law regarding Ramon. We again
directed the juvenile court to ensure the Department complied
fully with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and related
California law. (Gabriella H. II, supra, B315796.)

     D.      The Department Conducts Additional Inquiries and
             Submits Revised Notices to the Tribe, and the
             Juvenile Court Finds ICWA Does Not Apply
      In October and December 2022 the Department reported
that a social worker contacted Hailey and Ramon’s paternal

                                5
grandmother, who denied having Indian ancestry but said the
children’s paternal grandfather claimed to have Indian ancestry.
She said that the paternal grandfather had died three years ago
and that, because he was incarcerated for over 20 years after
they separated, she did not have his last known address. A social
worker also contacted two paternal aunts, Christina T. and
Heather T., both of whom said they had no Indian ancestry.
Christina and Heather also told the social worker that they had
“heard” their side of the family was “somehow affiliated” with a
tribe, but that they were not registered members. The
Department spoke again with paternal aunt Vanessa, who again
said Ramon’s family had Indian ancestry. And the Department
attempted multiple times without success to contact the paternal
great-grandfather’s sister Norma.
       In December 2022 the Department sent revised ICWA-030
notices to the Pascua Yaqui tribe. The notices provided known
information omitted from the previous deficient notices, including
birth dates and places for the paternal grandparents. In
addition, in a section titled “[o]ther relative information,” the
notices included information about Vanessa and Norma, but did
not identify Christina and Heather. On March 1, 2023 the
Pascua Yaqui tribe notified the Department that Hailey,
Chastity, and Ramon were not members of the tribe and did not
have membership applications pending.
       On March 13, 2023 the juvenile court found that there was
no reason to believe or know Hailey or Ramon was an Indian
child and that ICWA did not apply. The court terminated
Chastity’s and Ramon T.’s parental rights to Hailey and Ramon.
Chastity timely appealed.

                                6
                         DISCUSSION

       Chastity again argues the juvenile court failed to ensure
the Department complied with its duty of inquiry under ICWA,
but her only contention this time is that the revised ICWA
notices did not include information about the children’s paternal
aunts Christina and Heather in the section for “[o]ther relative
information.” Thus, we address only whether the Department’s
revised notices complied with its obligations under the notice
requirements of ICWA and related California law.
       “ICWA provides: ‘“In any involuntary proceeding in a State
court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an
Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care
placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child
shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s
tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the
pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.”
[Citation.] This notice requirement, which is also codified in
California law [citation], enables a tribe to determine whether
the child is an Indian child and, if so, whether to intervene in or
exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding.’ [Citations.] ‘ICWA
reflects a congressional determination to protect Indian children
and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and
families by establishing minimum federal standards a state court
must follow before removing an Indian child from his or her
family.’” (In re J.C. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 70, 76-77; see
25 U.S.C. § 1902.)
       “Federal regulations implementing ICWA provide that the
notice must include, in addition to information about the child
and the child’s parents, ‘“[i]f known, the names, birthdates,

                                 7
birthplaces, and Tribal enrollment information of other direct
lineal ancestors of the child, such as grandparents.”’” (In re Y.W.
(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 556-557; see 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.11(a),
23.111(d)(1)-(3); In re E.H. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1069.)
“Section 224.3, subdivision (a)(5)(C), requires ICWA notices to
include ‘[a]ll names known of the Indian child’s biological
parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, or Indian
custodians, including maiden, married, and former names or
aliases, as well as their current and former addresses, birth
dates, places of birth and death, tribal enrollment information of
other direct lineal ancestors of the child, and any other
identifying information, if known.’” (Y.W., at p. 557; see In re
T.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 275, 294 & fn. 18.) In general, ICWA
notices “‘“must include enough information for the tribe to
‘conduct a meaningful review of its records to determine the
child’s eligibility for membership.’”’” (Y.W., at p. 557; In re J.S.
(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 688.)
       The Department’s revised notices complied with these
requirements by providing the information known to the
Department concerning Hailey and Ramon’s parents and
grandparents. Neither ICWA nor California law requires an
ICWA notice to include known information about non-direct
lineal ancestors, such as aunts. (See 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.11(a),
23.111(d)(1)-(3); § 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(C); In re E.H., supra,
26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070, fn. 16 [distinguishing between “direct
lineal ancestors” and relatives listed in the “[o]ther relative
information” section of the ICWA notice form, such as aunts and
uncles].)
       Chastity concedes our prior opinions did not require the
Department to provide “information pertaining to the other

                                 8
paternal aunts,” and she cites no case interpreting ICWA or
related California law that way. But she argues that Christina
and Heather, like Vanessa, “were Indian relatives whose
information was potentially relevant to a membership or
eligibility determination made by the Pascua Yaqui tribe” and
that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s
finding ICWA did not apply. The revised notices, however,
satisfied the requirement that an ICWA notice must provide
enough information for the tribe to conduct a meaningful review
to determine a child’s eligibility for membership. (See In re Y.W.,
supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 557; In re J.S., supra, 62 Cal.App.5th
at p. 688.) The revised notices included the names, birthplaces,
and birth dates of the children’s father and paternal grandfather,
who the paternal grandmother said claimed Indian ancestry and
whose blood line included the paternal great-grandfather, who
Vanessa believed “came from the [Pascua] Yaqui tribe.” That
was enough information for the tribe to determine if the children
were members or eligible for membership. (See In re Delila D.
(2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, 965 [“ICWA defines an Indian child as
either 1) a member of a tribe or 2) a biological child of a member
and eligible for membership.”]; 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); § 224.1,
subd. (a).)
       And even if California law required the Department to
provide the names of the children’s paternal aunts in the notices
sent to the Pascua Yaqui tribe, Chastity has not shown that
omission would have affected the Pascua Yaqui tribe’s
determination Hailey and Ramon were not members of the tribe.
Thus, any error by the juvenile court in failing to ensure the
Department complied with such an obligation was harmless.
(See In re Y.W., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 558 [any failure to

                                 9
comply with a higher state standard for ICWA notices “‘“must be
held harmless unless the appellant can show a reasonable
probability that he or she would have enjoyed a more favorable
result in the absence of the error”’”]; In re E.H., supra,
26 Cal.App.5th at p. 1072 [same]; In re S.E. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 610, 615 [“[w]here notice has been received by
the tribe, errors or omissions in the notice are reviewed under the
harmless error standard”].)

                         DISPOSITION

      The order is affirmed.

                                          SEGAL, J.

      We concur:

            PERLUSS, P. J.                FEUER, J.

                                10