Court Opinion

ID: 9366801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 23:03:00.786699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:55.224293
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/27/23 In re Camille A. CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 In re CAMILLE A., a Person                                   B316542
 Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
 Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02310)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 LARRY D.,

            Defendant and
            Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Terry T. Truong, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed
with directions.
      Carol A. Koenig, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Kelly Emling, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                 _______________________________
                                                                1
      In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.),
Larry D., the presumed father, appeals from the juvenile court’s
disposition order removing then-15-year-old Camille A. from his
custody. At the time DCFS filed these proceedings, Larry, who is
not Camille’s biological father, had sole legal and physical
custody of her under a final custody order issued in a prior
dependency proceeding. Larry contends we must remand the
matter for compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25
U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; (ICWA)) and California law implementing
ICWA. He argues (1) the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its
duty to inquire under section 224.2 whether Camille is or may be
an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA, (2) DCFS sent
defective ICWA notices to the tribes, and (3) the juvenile court
erred in finding ICWA does not apply. For the reasons explained
below, we conclude there was prejudicial inquiry error, including
DCFS’s failure to interview Camille’s biological father regarding
Camille’s possible Indian status. We remand the matter to the
juvenile court with directions for DCFS and the court to comply
with the inquiry provisions of California law implementing
ICWA, as specified below.

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

                                2
                                          2
                         BACKGROUND
I.    The Family
      Camille is the biological daughter of Callie A. (Mother) and
Peter C., who are not parties to this appeal. When Camille was
born in 2006, Mother was in a relationship with appellant Larry
D. and lived with him. The following year, Mother and Larry had
a daughter, A.D. Mother and Larry did not marry. In or around
late 2008, they ended their relationship and informally agreed to
share custody of Camille and A.D.
                                          3
II.   Prior Dependency Proceedings
      In 2010, DCFS filed a dependency petition under section
300 involving Camille and her half siblings (Mother’s children),
alleging Camille’s three-month-old half sibling was injured and
Mother’s explanation was inconsistent with the infant’s injuries.
The petition also alleged Peter, Camille’s biological father, failed
to provide Camille with the necessities of life and his
whereabouts were unknown. The juvenile court sustained these
and other allegations in the petition. The petition did not include
any allegations against Larry. ~(1CT 68-69)~ Apparently, Mother

      2
       We include here only the facts germane to the issues on
appeal: DCFS’s and the juvenile court’s compliance with ICWA
and California law implementing ICWA.
      3
        Our account of the prior dependency proceedings is taken
primarily from DCFS’s summaries of those proceedings set forth
in its Detention and Jurisdiction/Disposition reports in the
present action. The records from the prior dependency
proceedings are not included in the record before us, with the
exception of a June 29, 2012 minute order identifying Peter as
Camille’s biological father, and a portion of the October 25, 2012
final custody order referenced below.

                                 3
and Larry were still sharing custody of Camille on an informal
basis when these (prior) dependency proceedings commenced.
Camille was not placed with Larry at the outset of the
proceedings; it is not clear from the record where she was placed
initially.
       In these same prior dependency proceedings, the juvenile
court declined to order reunification services for Mother. DCFS
located Peter, and he participated in the proceedings, having
Camille placed with him at one point. In 2011, the court
terminated Camille’s placement with Peter, ordering her suitably
placed by DCFS, and later the court terminated Peter’s
reunification services. Sometime in 2012, the court placed
Camille with Larry, where her sister A.D. continued to live. The
court deemed Larry to be Camille’s de facto parent and later
found him to be her presumed father and ordered family
maintenance services for him and Camille. On October 24, 2012,
the court terminated dependency jurisdiction over Camille and
awarded Larry sole legal and physical custody of her, with
                                 4
supervised visitation for Mother. The court issued the final
                                                      5
custody order the following day, on October 25, 2012.
      The record in this appeal does not include any ICWA
finding made in a prior dependency proceeding.

      4
       The juvenile court apparently did not terminate Peter’s
parental rights, but it did not award him custody of or visitation
with Camille.
      5
        We do not discuss herein other prior dependency petitions
and proceedings involving Camille’s half siblings (Mother’s
children) because those proceedings are not relevant to the
present appeal.

                                 4
III.   Present Dependency Proceedings and ICWA Inquiry
       A.    Detention
       As stated in DCFS’s Detention Report in the present action,
in May 2021, Larry contacted DCFS and reported that then-14-
year-old Camille had been running away from home and not
following rules, and he had concerns about “keeping her safe.”
He informed DCFS that he “no longer wanted custody” of her and
she was “no longer welcome in his home.” Camille denied
running away, telling DCFS that Larry “had been putting her
out” of the home. She denied feeling unsafe with him but
reported being “fearful of his unwarranted anger toward her.”
Camille described incidents of physical discipline by Larry
(pushing, striking, holding her by her neck). Camille informed a
social worker that she had not seen Mother since she was nine or
10 years old (a period of around four or five years). DCFS
detained Camille and placed her in a foster home. DCFS had no
concerns about 13-year-old A.D.’s safety (Camille’s sister), and
she remained in Larry’s custody.
       Although DCFS was aware that Larry is not Camille’s
biological father, DCFS inquired about Larry’s possible Native
American ancestry. Both Larry and DCFS agree that Larry’s
ancestry is irrelevant to the ICWA issues he raises in this appeal
because he is not Camille’s biological father. Thus, we will not
set forth herein the results of DCFS’s inquiry into Larry’s
ancestry, although we will note below each time DCFS and the
juvenile court made such an inquiry regarding his ancestry (and
did not make a similar inquiry of Camille’s biological father,
Peter).
       DCFS stated in the Detention Report that Mother’s
whereabouts were unknown. Larry told the social worker that he

                                5
and Camille were in contact with Camille’s maternal
grandmother, C.W., and Camille had gone to Texas to visit her
during the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 14, 2021, a social
worker contacted the maternal grandmother and interviewed her
regarding the conflict between Larry and Camille. The maternal
grandmother told the social worker she had not seen Mother in
around five years. There is no indication in the Detention Report
that the social worker asked the maternal grandmother about
Camille’s possible Indian status during this May 14 interview.
       DCFS stated in the Detention Report: “[ICWA] does not
apply. [The social worker] was unable to verify its validity.”
       On May 17, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition under
section 300, alleging, among other things, that Larry physically
abused Camille by pushing her, striking her body, breaking her
glasses, and holding her by the neck against a closet (count a-2).
DCFS attached to the petition form ICWA-010(A), the Indian
Child Inquiry Attachment. DCFS checked boxes indicating a
social worker interviewed Larry regarding Camille’s possible
Indian status, and such inquiry “gave [the social worker] no
reason to believe the child is or may be an Indian child.”
       Larry appeared at the May 20, 2021 detention hearing, and
the juvenile court found him to be Camille’s presumed father.
His counsel filed on his behalf form ICWA-020, the Parental
Notification of Indian Status, indicating one or more of his lineal
ancestors was a member of a Cherokee tribe. The court ordered
DCFS to investigate Larry’s claim of Native American ancestry
and update the court in a report. The court asked Larry if
Mother had any Native American ancestry as far as he knew, and
he said no. The court stated in its minute order from the
detention hearing: “Based on [Larry]’s statements, the Court

                                 6
does have a reason to know that this is an Indian Child, as
defined under ICWA.” The court did not mention Camille’s
biological father, Peter.
       Larry submitted on Camille’s detention from him, and the
juvenile court made detention findings. Larry’s counsel informed
the court that Larry wanted “to build[] his relationship” with
Camille through conjoint counseling and regular visitation.
Larry agreed that his visits be monitored. Camille remained
placed in a foster home.
       B.    Jurisdiction/disposition
             1.    Jurisdiction/disposition report and first
                   set of ICWA notices
       As stated in DCFS’s Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, on
June 3, 2021, a dependency investigator/social worker
(investigator) interviewed Camille’s maternal grandmother
regarding Camille’s possible Indian status. The report states:
“[The maternal grandmother] reported her paternal side of the
family ‘has full Indian,’ from possibly Apache and Cherokee
tribes. However, the maternal grandmother reported she and her
family have made efforts to confirm their Indian Ancestry and
have not been successful. The maternal grandmother reported
her great grandmother [name and date of birth given] and great,
great grandmother [name and date of birth given] both were of
Indian Ancestry.” The maternal grandmother provided the name
of and telephone number for Camille’s maternal aunt, T.S., and
represented to the investigator that the maternal aunt had
expressed interest in having Camille placed with her. There is no
indication in the record that DCFS contacted the maternal aunt
or made an inquiry of her regarding Camille’s possible Indian

                               7
status. The investigator also asked Larry for further information
about his Native American ancestry, which he provided.
        Based on information from Larry and the maternal
grandmother, on June 15, 2021, DCFS sent notice of the
adjudication hearing (form ICWA-030, Notice of Child Custody
Proceeding for Indian Child) by certified mail, with return receipt
requested, to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Secretary of
the Interior, and Cherokee and Apache tribes. In the space on
page three of the form for identifying the child’s biological father,
DCFS listed Larry D. and provided his address, date of birth, and
his family’s potential tribal affiliations, although he is not
Camille’s biological father. In a space on page 10 of the form for
providing “additional information on child,” DCFS checked boxes
stating “[b]iological birth father has acknowledged parentage”
and “[t]here has been a judicial declaration of parentage.”
Thereunder, DCFS checked “unknown” next to an inquiry
regarding “[o]ther alleged father.” Underneath that, DCFS typed
“Peter C[.],” without indicating that Peter is Camille’s biological
father or providing any other identifying information about him
(e.g., date of birth or address) or his relationship with Camille.
The form identifies Camille’s maternal grandmother, listing her
maiden surname only, although the record shows DCFS was
aware of her current surname, and the form asks for both names.
DCFS also included on the form the name of and date/place of
                                                 6
birth for Camille’s maternal great-grandfather.

      6
        We do not set forth herein the information listed in the
ICWA form regarding Larry’s ancestry, as it is not germane to
the issues on appeal, as we explained above.

                                  8
       In a declaration form attached to the ICWA notices, behind
the proof of service, the investigator listed numerous items of
information she had learned during her ICWA inquiry. Therein,
she stated Larry told her that he is Camille’s presumed father
but not her biological father. The investigator did not reference
Peter in the declaration or state that he is Camille’s biological
father. The investigator also listed in her declaration the names
and dates of birth/death of the maternal grandmother’s great-
grandmother and great-great-grandmother and their potential
tribal affiliations, but she did explain their relation to Camille (or
the maternal grandmother). DCFS did not include the names
and birth dates of these relatives in the spaces provided on the
ICWA-030 form for “[o]ther relative information.”
       DCFS attached to the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
return receipts it received from the BIA and Cherokee and
Apache tribes. DCFS also attached two letters it received from
Apache tribes, stating Camille is not eligible for enrollment based
on the information DCFS provided in the ICWA notice.
       DCFS stated in the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report that
Peter was then incarcerated in a jail in Los Angeles on an
unspecified felony charge. DCFS had not interviewed him but
served him with notice of the adjudication hearing at the jail, by
certified mail, and received a return receipt. Camille’s foster
mother told the investigator that Camille “want[ed] to establish a
relationship with her biological father,” Peter.
        On July 8, 2021, the date scheduled for the adjudication
hearing, the juvenile court informed the parties that it was
continuing the adjudication because DCFS had “not provided
proper ICWA notice in this case.” The court ordered DCFS “to
properly notice the tribe with all available information on

                                  9
[Larry]’s family” (although Larry is not biologically related to
Camille) and provide a supplemental report “to include the new
updated ICWA notices.” Camille’s maternal grandmother was
present at the hearing by telephone. The court asked her if she
had information about Mother’s whereabouts, and she said no.
The court also asked her: “As far as you know, do you have any
Native American Indian heritage or does the daughter’s father’s
family have any Native American Indian heritage?” The
maternal grandmother responded: “To my knowledge there is
Native American Indian heritage. I just don’t know what it is. I
do have a family tree now.” The court stated it did not have a
reason to know that ICWA applies as to Mother. Addressing the
maternal grandmother, the court stated, “I would ask that if you
do get additional information with regards to any American
Indian heritage in your family, I do need for you to provide [it] to
the social worker.” There is no indication in the record that
anyone asked the maternal grandmother to provide to the social
worker the family tree she referenced during the hearing.
             2.    Second set of ICWA notices
      On August 6, 2021, DCFS filed an Addendum Report,
which included updated ICWA information. DCFS reported that
the investigator interviewed Larry again about Camille’s possible
Indian status. DCFS also reported that it had used outdated
contact information for some of the tribes. Accordingly, on
August 4, 2021, DCFS sent new ICWA notices (form ICWA-030)
by certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the BIA, the
Secretary of the Interior and the Cherokee and Apache tribes.
      This second set of ICWA notices, like the first, listed
Larry’s information in the spaces reserved for information about
Camille’s biological father and included Peter’s name in the

                                 10
additional information section without any context regarding his
relation to Camille. The notices listed the maternal
grandmother’s maiden surname, but not her current surname, as
well as the name of and date/place of birth for Camille’s maternal
great-grandfather. The spaces on the ICWA form for listing
“[o]ther relative information” were left blank, notwithstanding
the information the maternal grandmother provided about her
ancestors. And the investigator’s declaration, again attached
behind the proof of service, listed the same information we
summarized above in reference to the first set of ICWA notices.
        DCFS attached to the Addendum Report return receipts it
received from the BIA, the Secretary of the Interior, and
Cherokee and Apache tribes. DCFS also attached five letters it
received from Apache tribes, stating Camille is not eligible for
enrollment based on the information DCFS provided in the ICWA
notice. Three of those letters list Larry as Camille’s father
(although he is not her biological father). None of the letters
references Peter.
        In the Addendum Report, DCFS recommended monitored
visitation for Peter to commence after he contacted DCFS. The
record does not indicate DCFS served him with notice of the
continued adjudication hearing.
        On August 9, 2021, DCFS filed a first amended dependency
petition, adding an allegation under section 300, subdivisions (b)
and (g) that Mother failed to provide Camille with the necessities
of life and her whereabouts were unknown (counts b-5 & g-2).
DCFS attached to the amended petition form ICWA-010(A), the
Indian Child Inquiry Attachment. DCFS checked boxes
indicating the investigator interviewed Larry and the maternal
grandmother regarding Camille’s possible Indian status, and

                               11
such inquiry “gave [the investigator] reason to believe the child is
or may be an Indian child,” so the investigator “contacted the
tribe(s) that the child may be affiliated with and worked with
them to establish whether the child is a member or eligible for
membership in the tribe(s).”
       On August 19, 2021, the date scheduled for the
adjudication hearing, the juvenile court again continued the
adjudication, stating: “With regards to the adjudication, I need
[DCFS] to provide the court with updated ICWA notices if those
              [7]
were sent out. The issue was whether -- was that the notices
didn’t -- previous notices did not include paternal great
grandmother [Larry’s relative]. There’s also the issue of possible
biological father Peter C[.] who is currently in state prison.” The
court ordered DCFS (1) to provide an update on ICWA notices in
the next report, (2) to make contact with Peter, discuss the case
with him, and document the contact in the next report, and (3) to
arrange for Peter’s appearance at the next hearing.
       On September 16, 2021, DCFS filed a second Addendum
Report, attaching additional return receipts it had received from
Cherokee and Apache tribes. DCFS also attached additional
letters it had received from Apache tribes, stating Camille is not
eligible for membership based on the information DCFS provided
in the ICWA notice. DCFS detailed the efforts it had made to
secure Peter’s appearance at the next hearing. The investigator

      7
        As set forth above, DCFS sent a second set of ICWA
notices on August 4, 2021 and attached them to the Addendum
Report it filed with the court on August 6, 2021, but no one
mentioned this at the August 19, 2021 hearing.

                                12
did not speak with Peter but served him with notice of the
hearing at the prison where he was incarcerated.
             3.     Adjudication and disposition hearings
       Peter was not transported to court for the next hearing,
held on September 29, 2021. The juvenile court proceeded with
adjudication. Larry appeared, and the maternal grandmother
participated by telephone. After hearing argument from counsel
for Larry, Camille, and DCFS, the court sustained count a-2
(physical abuse) against Larry and count g-2 (no provision for
support) against Mother and dismissed the other counts. There
were no counts alleged against Peter.
       The juvenile court continued the matter for disposition,
explaining: “As to disposition, [Peter]’s situation is unfortunately
preventing me from proceeding to disposition. I would like for
[DCFS] to continue its attempt to reach him. And what I’m
looking for really is to see whether [Peter] wants to be presumed
father. And if he does, whether he has any sort of a plan for
Camille’s placement given that he is currently incarcerated.” The
court further stated: “As far as the ICWA issue, time has expired
for the tribes to respond back to the court. At this time I can’t
find that ICWA does not apply in this case.” The court did not
elaborate.
       DCFS served Peter with notice of the disposition hearing at
the prison where he was incarcerated. As stated in DCFS’s
October 26, 2021 Last Minute Information for the Court, on
October 22, 2021, prison staff contacted the investigator and
stated Peter waived his right to appear at the disposition
hearing. Staff sent DCFS a form signed by Peter stating he did
not want to be transported to court for the disposition hearing,

                                13
but he wanted the juvenile court to appoint an attorney to
represent him at the hearing.
       Larry appeared at the October 29, 2021 disposition hearing,
and the maternal grandmother participated by telephone. The
juvenile court found Peter had waived his appearance. At the
outset of the hearing, the juvenile court stated: “Counsel, I am
inclined to make a no ICWA finding in this case. Does anyone
want to be heard with regards to ICWA? All right. [¶] Then the
court finds that ICWA does not apply in this case.” The court’s
minute order states: “The Court does not have a reason to know
that this is an Indian child, as defined under ICWA, and does not
order notice to any tribe or the BIA. Parents are to keep [DCFS],
their Attorney and the Court aware of new information relating
to possible ICWA status.” Peter was never interviewed in this
case regarding Camille’s possible Indian status. The court did
not appoint counsel to represent Peter at the disposition hearing.
       After hearing argument from counsel for Larry, Camille,
and DCFS, the juvenile court declared Camille a dependent of the
court, removed her from Larry, and ordered her suitably placed
under DCFS’s supervision. The court ordered reunification
services and monitored visitation for Larry; and monitored
visitation for Mother and Peter, to commence after they contacted
DCFS.
                           DISCUSSION
I.     Applicable Law
        Under ICWA, an “Indian child” is an unmarried person
under 18 years of age who is (1) a member of a federally
recognized Indian tribe or (2) is eligible for membership in a
federally recognized tribe and is the biological child of a member

                               14
of a federally recognized tribe. (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) & (8); see
§ 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal definitions].)
        DCFS and the juvenile court “have an affirmative and
continuing duty to inquire whether a child” involved in
dependency proceedings “is or may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2,
subd. (a).) DCFS’s “ ‘initial duty of inquiry includes “asking the
child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family
members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party
reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be,
an Indian child and where the child, the parents, or Indian
custodian is domiciled.” ’ ” (In re Darian R. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th
502, 507 (Darian R.), italics omitted.) Under ICWA, the term
“ ‘extended family member’ ” is “defined by the law or custom of
the Indian child’s tribe or, in the absence of such law or custom,
shall be a person who has reached the age of eighteen and who is
the Indian child’s grandparent, aunt or uncle, brother or sister,
brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second
cousin or stepparent.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(2).)
        “At the first appearance in court of each party, the court
shall ask 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)) and order the parents to
complete form ICWA-020 (Parental Notification of Indian
Status). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2)(C).)
       If the juvenile court or social worker “has reason to believe
that an Indian child is involved in a proceeding,” based on the
initial inquiry described above, the court or social worker “shall
make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the
child,” including, but not limited to: (1) interviewing the parents
and extended family members; (2) contacting the BIA and the

                                15
State Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying
and contacting tribes; and (3) contacting tribes and others “that
may reasonably be expected to have information regarding the
child’s membership status or eligibility.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).)
There is reason to believe a child is an Indian child if there is
information suggesting that either the child or the parent is a
member or may be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.
(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(1).) “Information suggesting membership or
eligibility for membership includes, but is not limited to,
information that indicates, but does not establish, the existence
of one or more of the grounds for reason to know enumerated in
paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (d),” which we set
forth below. (Ibid.)
       The purpose of interviewing extended family members as
part of further inquiry is “to gather the information required in
paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 224.3.” (§ 224.2, subd.
(e)(2)(A).) Such information includes: “All 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.” (§ 224.3,
subd. (a)(5)(C).)
       ICWA notice is required if DCFS or the juvenile court
knows or has reason to know a child is an Indian child under any
of the circumstances described in section 224.2, subdivision (d).
(25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); § 224.3, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule
5.481(b)(1).) Under subdivision (d), “There is reason to know a

                                16
child involved in a proceeding is an Indian child under any of the
following circumstances:
       “(1) A person having an interest in the child, including the
child, an officer of the court, a tribe, an Indian organization, a
public or private agency, or a member of the child’s extended
family informs the court that the child is an Indian child.
       “(2) The residence or domicile of the child, the child’s
parents, or Indian custodian is on a reservation or in an Alaska
Native village.
       “(3) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court,
Indian tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court
that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an
Indian child.
       “(4) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the
court reason to know that the child is an Indian child.
       “(5) The court is informed that the child is or has been a
ward of a tribal court.
       “(6) The court is informed that either parent or the child
possess an identification card indicating membership or
citizenship in an Indian tribe.” (§ 224.2, subd. (d).)
       We generally review ICWA findings for substantial
evidence, but where, as here, the material facts are undisputed,
“ ‘ “we review independently whether ICWA requirements have
been satisfied.” ’ ” (In re J.K. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 498, 504.)
II.    Analysis
       Larry contends DCFS failed to comply with its initial duty
to inquire whether Camille is or may be an Indian child within
the meaning of ICWA. Based on the record, DCFS did not
contact Camille’s biological father Peter or Camille’s maternal
aunt T.S. to conduct an ICWA inquiry, although DCFS had

                                 17
contact information for both. As set forth above, under California
law implementing ICWA, DCFS’s initial duty of inquiry includes
asking a biological parent and a maternal aunt whether the child
is or may be an Indian child. (See Darian R., supra, 75
Cal.App.5th at p. 507, citing § 224.2, subd. (b).) The juvenile
court made its finding that ICWA does not apply without the
benefit of such inquiries. The failure to inquire of Peter and the
maternal aunt regarding Camille’s ancestry was error.
       An error in conducting the initial ICWA inquiry is one of
state law and requires reversal only on a showing of prejudice.
(In re S.S. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 575, 582 (S.S.).) In assessing
whether remand is required for a failure to comply with the duty
of inquiry under state law implementing ICWA, this division has
applied the definition of prejudice set forth in In re Benjamin M.
(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Benjamin M.). (Darian R., supra,
75 Cal.App.5th at p. 509; S.S., at p. 582.) Under the Benjamin M.
standard, we will remand the matter only “where 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., at p. 744.)
       Peter was readily available to DCFS, as DCFS had served
him with notice of hearings at his place of incarceration. An
inquiry of Peter was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether
Camille is an Indian child because Peter is her biological father
and DCFS did not make contact with any relative on Peter’s side
of the family. There is nothing in the record suggesting an
inquiry of Peter would not be meaningful in elucidating whether
Camille is an Indian child. We disagree with DCFS’s claim in the
respondent’s brief that Camille’s maternal grandmother “would
know if biological father [Peter] had Native American ancestry.”

                               18
The record does not support DCFS’s speculation. Accordingly,
this initial inquiry error was prejudicial under the Benjamin M.
standard. (Cf. Darian R., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 510 [failure
to make an inquiry of a maternal aunt and the maternal
grandfather was not prejudicial where both parents denied
Indian ancestry, the mother was under a court order to provide
information relevant to ICWA, there was no evidence mother was
estranged from her family, and a prior court order in an earlier
dependency case involving the same biologic parents found ICWA
inapplicable]; S.S., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 581, 582 [failure
to make an inquiry of the maternal grandmother was not
prejudicial because the “maternal grandmother, [the] [m]other’s
counsel, and [the child’s] counsel, each of whom requested that
the court consider placing [the child] with the maternal
grandmother, would . . . have a strong incentive to bring to the
court’s attention any facts that suggest that [the child] is an
Indian child. Their failure to do so implies that the maternal
grandmother is unaware of such facts”].)
       We remand the matter for an inquiry of Peter regarding
Camille’s potential Native American ancestry. If Peter identifies
other extended family members, whom DCFS is able to contact,
DCFS must also inquire of them regarding potential Native
American ancestry.
       We also order DCFS to conduct an inquiry of the maternal
aunt upon remand. In the respondent’s brief, DCFS does not
address the initial inquiry error in failing to interview the
maternal aunt. In light of the maternal grandmother’s
statements regarding her family’s Native American ancestry, and
her difficulty in accessing complete information about that
ancestry, we cannot conclude the failure to interview the

                                19
maternal aunt regarding Camille’s possible Indian status was
harmless.
       Larry also contends DCFS should have collected from the
maternal grandmother the family tree she referenced at the July
8, 2021 hearing, before DCFS sent the first set of ICWA notices
on July 15, 2021. DCFS does not respond to this contention in
the respondent’s brief. The record indicates that neither DCFS
nor the juvenile court reviewed the family tree or asked the
maternal grandmother to turn over a copy of it. As part of its
duty of inquiry upon remand, we order DCFS to request a copy of
the family tree from the maternal grandmother and review it for
additional information regarding Camille’s potential Native
American ancestry, to the extent the maternal grandmother
provides the family tree.
       Larry further contends that both sets of ICWA notices
DCFS sent were defective in that, among other things, the
notices (1) listed Larry’s information in the spaces relating to the
biological father, (2) did not identify Peter as Camille’s biological
father, (3) did not include the maternal grandmother’s current
surname, (4) listed information regarding lineal relatives the
maternal grandmother identified in a declaration attached
behind the proof of service, rather than in the spaces provided in
the form for listing information about other relatives, and (5)
were not properly sent to certain of the Cherokee and Apache
tribes.
       We need not address Larry’s contention about the ICWA
notices because, at this juncture, there is no reason to know
Camille is an Indian child under any of the circumstances set
forth in section 224.2, subdivision (d), so notice to the tribes of the
dependency proceedings was not required (although DCFS sent

                                  20
notice). (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) Larry does not cite to any
circumstance enumerated in the statute that he believes
demonstrates a reason to know Camille is an Indian child. There
is no information in the record indicating Camille is a member of
a federally recognized Indian tribe or is eligible for membership
in a federally recognized tribe and is the biological child of a
member of a federally recognized tribe, the definition of an
“Indian child.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) & (8); see § 224.1, subd. (a)
[adopting federal definitions].) If DCFS’s ICWA inquiry upon
remand, as outlined in this opinion, reveals a reason to know
Camille is an Indian child, DCFS must send notices that comply
with ICWA and California law implementing ICWA.
                            DISPOSITION
        The disposition order is affirmed. The matter is remanded
to the juvenile court for DCFS and the court to comply with the
inquiry provisions of California law implementing ICWA,
consistent with this opinion. The juvenile court is directed to
order DCFS to file a report with the juvenile court within 30 days
of our remittitur containing the information required by
California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5), including a description
of all inquiries of the biological father, the maternal aunt, the
maternal grandmother, and any other available extended family
members. Thereafter, the juvenile court shall conduct further

                                21
proceedings in accordance with ICWA and related California law,
if applicable.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                        CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                               22