Court Opinion

ID: 9781679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:04:48.977267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:03.464997
License: Public Domain

See Dissenting Opinion

Filed 8/30/23 In re B.B. 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 B.B., et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
 OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,                                              E080946

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. SWJ2100249)

 v.                                                                      OPINION

 H.B. et al.,

          Defendants and Appellants.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael J. Rushton,

Judge. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.

         William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant H.B.

         William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant B.W.
       Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie K. Jarvi, Deputy

County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

       In this appeal following the termination of parental rights, defendants and

appellants H.B. (father) and B.W. (mother) contend only that the county welfare

department failed to comply with California law implementing the Indian Child Welfare
                                                  1
Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; ICWA). Relying on Welfare and Institutions

Code, section 224.2, subdivision (b), the parents argue the department failed to discharge

its duty of initial inquiry because it did not ask several extended family members whether
                                       2
the children have any Indian ancestry. The department, relying on In re Robert F.

(2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 492, review granted July 26, 2023, S279743 (Robert F.) and In re

Ja.O. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 672, 680-681, review granted July 26, 2023, S280572

(Ja.O.), argues that it had no duty to ask extended family members about possible Indian

ancestry. In the alternative, the department asserts that any error was harmless.

       Absent further instruction from our Supreme Court, we reject the department’s

arguments based on Robert F. and Ja.O. because we disagree with those cases’

interpretation of the relevant statutes. We find the analysis of In re Delila D. (2023) 93

Cal.App.5th 953 (Delila D.) more persuasive. We disagree with the department that the

       1
         “[B]ecause ICWA uses the term ‘Indian,’ we 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
           Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                              2
error was harmless, as the record indicates that there was “readily obtainable information

that was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is an Indian child.”

(Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 744.) The department’s arguments that

Benjamin M. was wrongly decided are unpersuasive. We conditionally affirm and

remand with directions.

                                     BACKGROUND

       In June 2021, plaintiff and respondent Riverside County Department of Public

Social Services (the department) obtained a protective custody warrant to temporarily

detain B.B. (born May 2015) from parents. Several days later, the department filed a

dependency petition, alleging that B.B. came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1)

(failure to protect). The juvenile court ordered B.B. detained out of parental care.

       In March 2022, while reunification efforts as to B.B. were ongoing, his sister A.B.

was born. Shortly thereafter, the department obtained a protective custody warrant to

temporarily detain A.B. from parents, and it filed a dependency petition alleging that she

came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling).

The juvenile court ordered A.B., too, detained out of parental care.

       Mother and father, as well as the maternal grandmother, each denied any Indian

ancestry. During the dependency, the department interviewed a paternal first cousin, a

paternal aunt attended a hearing, and the department obtained contact information for the

paternal grandmother. There is no evidence, however, that the department asked these

three extended relatives whether the children are or may be Indian children.

                                              3
       In February 2023, after reunification efforts had failed, the juvenile court

terminated parental rights as to both B.B. and A.B.

                                        DISCUSSION

       Relying on Robert F. and Ja.O., the department contends that it had no duty to

contact the paternal extended relatives omitted from the ICWA inquiry. This conclusion

follows from those cases’ reasoning. We are not persuaded, however, that the reasoning

of those cases is correct.

       Under California law, the juvenile court and county child welfare department have

“an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child subject to a section 300

petition may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); see In re D.F. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th

558, 566 (D.F.).) “This continuing 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.”

(D.F., at p. 566.) Only the first of these phases is at issue in this appeal.

       In every dependency proceeding, the department has an initial duty to inquire into

whether a child is an Indian child. (In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 686.) “The

department’s ‘duty to inquire begins with the initial contact, including, but not limited to,

asking the party reporting child abuse or neglect whether the party has any information

that the child may be an Indian child.’” (Robert F., supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 499; see

§ 224, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481, subd. (a) (rule 5.481).) “In addition,

‘[f]ederal regulations require state courts to ask each participant “at the commencement”

of a child custody proceeding “whether the participant knows or has reason to know that

                                               4
the child is an Indian child.”’” (Robert F., at pp. 499-500; see 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a)

(2022).) As well, state law requires the court to inquire “‘“[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).)’” (Robert F., at p. 500.)

       “[U]nder subdivision (b) of section 224.2, ‘[i]f a child is placed into the temporary

custody of a county welfare department pursuant to Section 306,’ the department’s

obligation includes asking the ‘extended family members’ about the child’s Indian
       3
status.” (Robert F., supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 500.) This language was added by

Assembly Bill No. 3176 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which made various ICWA related

changes to the Welfare and Institutions Code, effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch.

833 (A.B. 3176), § 5.) Similar language appears in rule 5.481 of the California Rules of

Court, which the Judicial Council revised to implement section 224.2, subdivision (b):

“The party seeking a foster-care placement, . . . termination of parental rights,

preadoptive placement, or adoption must ask the child, if the child is old enough, and the

parents, Indian custodian, or legal guardians, extended family members, others who have

an interest in the child, and where applicable the party reporting child abuse or neglect,

whether the child is or may be an Indian child . . . .” (rule 5.481 (italics added).)

       3
          Section 224.2, subdivision (b), also applies when a child is placed in the
temporary custody of a county probation department pursuant to section 307. But then it
is the county probation department’s duty of inquiry, and not the county welfare
department’s. (See § 224.2, subd. (b).)

                                              5
       Following the concurring opinion in In re Adrian L. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 342,

357-358 (Adrian L.), Robert F. equates the phrase “‘placed into the temporary custody of

a county welfare department pursuant to Section 306’” with exercise of the department’s

authority under section 306, subdivision (a)(2) “to take children into temporary custody

‘without a warrant’ in certain circumstances.” (Robert F., supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p.

497; see Adrian L., supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at pp. 357-358 (conc. opn. of Kelley, J.).)

According to Robert F. and the Adrian L. concurrence, “[a] department that takes a child

into protective custody pursuant to a warrant does so under section 340, not section 306.”

(Robert F., at p. 497.) Ja.O. adopted the same reading of section 224.2, subdivision (b).

(Ja.O., supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 680-681.)

       Recently, however, Delila D. declined to follow Robert F., finding its holding

“contrary to both the letter and spirit of [A.B.3176].” (Delila D., supra, 93 Cal.App.5th

at p. 962.) Instead, Delila D. concluded “there is only one duty of initial inquiry, and that

duty encompasses available extended family members no matter how the child is initially

removed from home.” (Ibid.) Under Delila D.’s analysis of section 224.2, subdivisions

(a) and (b), together with rule 5.481, social workers have “a duty of initial inquiry that

begins at first contact, lasts throughout the proceeding, and includes ‘but is not limited to’

the reporting party, the child’s parents and extended family members, and others who

have an interest in the child, as those individuals become available during the case.”

(Delila D., at p. 966.)

                                              6
       This conflict in authority is currently under review by our Supreme Court, with In

re Ja.O. as the lead case. We find Delila D.’s thoughtful discussion of the statutory

language and legislative history persuasive, and adopt its reasoning and conclusions,

pending our Supreme Court’s resolution of the conflict.

       Applying Delila D. to this case, the department’s initial duty of inquiry—

including the ongoing duty to inquire of extended family members who become available

during the case—was triggered when a social worker received the children after

execution of the detention warrant and the department then maintained the children in

temporary custody, as authorized by section 306, subdivision (a)(1). We decline to

follow the reasoning of Ja.O., Robert F., or the Adrian L. concurrence that would lead to

a different result.

       Our next questions, then, are whether the department satisfied that expanded duty

of inquiry and, if not, whether failing to do so was harmless. The department has not

disputed that the first question must be answered negatively; nothing in the record shows

the three extended relatives were ever asked about the children’s Indian status, or that

they were unavailable to be asked. The department argues that the failure to inquire of

these relatives should be considered harmless error. We are not persuaded.

       There are multiple 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).) We will apply the

approach we described in Benjamin M., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 739. That is, we will

                                             7
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.) Even

where the agency has erred, however, it may be that, “considering the entire record, it

was obvious that additional information would not have been meaningful to the inquiry.”

(Id. at p. 743) “This might occur where the evidence already uncovered in the initial

inquiry was sufficient for a reliable determination.” (Ibid.)

       The department argues that Benjamin M. was wrongly decided, asserting that

Benjamin M., as applied, “essentially” amounts to “a reversible per se standard.” Not so.

There are circumstances where the record could demonstrate that the initial inquiry was

sufficient for a reliable determination, even though there was an erroneous failure to

inquire of some extended relatives. For example, in theory, the department could have

uncovered information affirmatively showing the children were disqualified from tribal

membership. (Cf. In re J.M. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 375, 382 [tribe’s membership

criteria showed children disqualified from membership “irrespective of their great-great

grandparents’ possible membership in the tribe”].) In some circumstances, a thorough,

but not perfect, inquiry can suffice for a reliable determination, despite some omissions.

(See In re Rylei S. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 309, 325 [discussing hypothetical where

agency “interviews the maternal grandfather; several, but not all of his four siblings; and

the maternal grandfather’s surviving parent, none of whom indicates the family has any

Indian ancestry,” and concluding that the “failure to interview the grandfather’s

                                             8
remaining siblings would certainly be harmless absent some additional unusual

circumstance”].) The record in this case, however, demonstrates nothing of the sort.

       The department argues that father’s own denial of Indian status should suffice,

since there is “nothing in the record to suggest that the father was unaware of his own

ancestry.” This line of argument ignores that a parent may deny Indian ancestry, but an

interview with an extended family member may nevertheless reveal such ancestry. (See

In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 554 [to accept a parent’s denial of any knowledge

of Indian ancestry, without further inquiry, “ignores the reality that 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 [“Oral transmission of relevant information from generation to

generation and the vagaries of translating from Indian languages to English combine to

create the very real possibility that a parent’s or other relative’s identification of the

family’s tribal affiliation [or lack thereof] is not accurate”].) We do not “second guess”

the trial court’s determination that father’s “multiple statements about his ancestry were

credible,” as the department suggests. On the contrary, we have no doubt father told the

truth about his ancestry, so far as he knows. Rather, we reject the notion that a reliable

determination of a child’s Indian ancestry can or should be limited to the parents’ own

knowledge when other relatives are readily available for inquiry and may have different

information.

                                               9
                                      DISPOSITION

       The orders terminating parental rights to B.B. and A.B. are conditionally affirmed.

We remand to the juvenile court for the department and the court to comply with the

inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and California law consistent with this opinion,

including inquiring of extended family members. If the court finds the children are

Indian children, it shall conduct a new section 366.26 hearing, as well as all further

proceedings, in compliance with ICWA and related California law. If not, the court’s

original section 366.26 orders will remain in effect.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                RAPHAEL
                                                                                         J.

I concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

                                             10
[In re B.B., E080946]

       MILLER, J., Dissenting

       I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion. B.W. (Mother) and H.B. (Father)

contend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) inquiry was

insufficient because the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the

Department) failed to ask extended relatives of B.B. and A.B. about possible Indian

ancestry. Mother and Father assert the Department had a duty to question extended

relatives under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b), and In re

Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953.

       I believe In re Robert F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 492, 500-501, correctly concluded

that the Department’s duty to initially question extended relatives is only triggered when

children are removed without protective custody warrants. Because B.B. and A.B. were

removed with protective custody warrants, the Department did not have an initial duty to

question extended relatives about possible Indian ancestry. I would affirm.

                                                        MILLER

                                                                                          J.

                                             1