Court Opinion

ID: 9895838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 20:04:34.04034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:03.886422
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/8/23 In re C.E. CA4/1
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re C.E., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                D082302
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. CJ1314B)

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

V.D.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael P. Pulos, Judge. Affirmed.
         Lelah S. Fisher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
      Mother1 appeals the June 8, 2023 jurisdiction and dispositional orders.
In the orders, the juvenile court found that her child was not an Indian child
within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), title 25 U.S.C.
section 1901 et seq. Her sole contention is that the San Diego County Health
and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed adequately to inquire into C.E.’s
Native American ancestry as required by ICWA (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and
Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 224.2. We disagree and affirm.
                                       I.
                               BACKGROUND
      Given the sole issue on appeal, a detailed factual background is not
necessary. Mother had sole custody of C.E. C.E. ran away from Mother in
April or May 2022. Mother reported C.E. missing on September 11, 2022.
On or about November 1, 2022, police detained C.E. Mother refused to pick
him up when he was detained. In November 2022, the Agency filed a petition
on behalf of then 16-year-old C.E. under section 300, subdivision (b). Mother
was an “absent caregiver” and was “unwilling and unable to provide care” for
C.E., or limit his dangerous behaviors, including substance use. C.E. has a
history of running away from Mother. At the detention hearing on November
7, 2022, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and
detained C.E. The court directed the Agency to investigate “whether [C.E.] is
an Indian child.”
      Mother and Father denied ICWA ancestry. C.E. denied ICWA ancestry
and explained that his half-brother may have ICWA ancestry on his father’s
side; the brothers do not share a father and the half-brother was never a

1     Father is not a party to this appeal.

2    All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise specified.
                                       2
guardian for C.E. Mother completed the Parental Notification of Indian
Status form, ICWA-020, and denied any “Indian Status.” The court ordered
both parents to disclose to the Agency the “names, residences, and any known
identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child.”
The Agency interviewed numerous other relatives to inquire into C.E.’s
ICWA ancestry.
      Mother was adopted for a period of six years. Her adoptive mother does
not believe C.E. has ICWA ancestry through Mother, and lost track of
Mother’s aunt and uncle. Mother’s temporary adoptive mother denied ICWA
ancestry; she remembered Mother’s biological mother participated in a
program offered by Native Americans in some way, she did not believe
Mother’s biological mother was native. When asked for identifying
information regarding her mother, Mother declined to provide any. She
states her mother was “ ‘drunk all the time and she had no teeth’ ” and that
Mother did not know if she was still alive.
      In the jurisdiction/disposition report filed November 18, 2022, the
Agency detailed their ICWA inquiries to various members of C.E.’s family.
Nothing the Agency uncovered during their inquiry gave reason to believe
C.E. is or may be an Indian child. On June 8, 2023, the court found, without
prejudice, that ICWA does not apply.
                                       II.
                                DISCUSSION
      Mother contends the Agency failed to discharge its inquiry obligations
under ICWA. She complains the Agency’s initial inquiry was deficient
because the Agency did not renew requests for information about her mother
and/or maternal grandmother. Mother further claims the Agency’s inquiry
was deficient because they did not reach out again to her temporary adoptive

                                       3
mother to ask for contact information for her mother. We disagree. As
detailed below, the Agency made reasonable and good faith efforts to inquire
into C.E.’s possible Native American ancestry and uncovered no viable leads
that would justify any further inquiry.
      We begin by setting out the Agency’s inquiry obligations under ICWA
and the state implementing statute. Congress enacted ICWA to address
concerns regarding the separation of Indian children from their tribes
through adoption or foster care placement with non-Indian families. (In re
Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1,7.) Congress gave tribes the “right to intervene
in or exercise jurisdiction over a dependency proceeding involving the Indian

child.”3 (In re I.F. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 152, 160.) To enable this right,
California law charges the juvenile court and Agency with an “affirmative
and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child “is or may be an Indian
child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a); see In re Isaiah W., at p. 9; In re D.S. (2020)
46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1052.) The Agency’s duty to make an initial inquiry
into the child’s possible Indian ancestry extends to “extended family
members,” which includes at least the maternal grandmother (§ 224.2,
subd. (b).) An agency is only obligated to make “a good faith effort to gather
information about the children’s membership status or eligibility.” (In re D.F.
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 558, 570.) An agency need not “ ‘cast about’ for
information or pursue unproductive investigative leads.” (In re D.S., at
p. 1053.)

3     An “ ‘Indian child’ ” is “any unmarried person who is under age
eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for
membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an
Indian tribe.” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); see § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal
definition].)
                                         4
      As to the initial inquiry, Mother faults the Agency for “failing to ask for
names of Mother’s biological family members in order to attempt to inquire of
them regarding her possible Indian ancestry.” The court has repeatedly
ordered Mother to disclose names or other identifying information of
maternal relatives, to include her biological mother and grandmother.
Further, when the Agency specifically asked Mother for her mother’s name,
Mother neither provided it nor any other identifying information. Mother
contends the court “did not order the Agency to ask Mother and [adopted
maternal grandmother] for the biological relatives’ names, as it should have
done,” but fails to address that the court has ordered Mother to disclose that
exact information or that the Agency has asked Mother for information about
her biological mother.
      Mother “has not demonstrated there was a viable lead that would
require [the Agency] ‘to make a meaningful effort to locate and interview
[additional maternal relatives] to obtain whatever information they may have
as to the child’s possible Indian status.’ ” (In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th
303, 323). We distinguish this case from the case Mother cites in which the
appellate court determined the child welfare agency’s initial ICWA inquiry
was inadequate. In In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542, 522-553, the social
worker did not follow up on a viable lead from the adoptive mother; the
adoptive mother offered the biological father’s name and offered to connect
the agency to a maternal aunt. Unlike In re Y.W., where the mother did not
know information about her biological parents and the agency had to rely
upon the adoptive family’s knowledge, Mother knows identifying information
for her mother and has not shared it with either the Agency or the court.
      Finally, Mother contends the Agency’s purported failure to adequately
inquire into C.E.’s Native American ancestry was prejudicial. We need not

                                        5
address the issue of prejudice, however, because “Mother has not
demonstrated error, and reversal is not warranted under the circumstances
of this case.” (In re A.M., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 323.)
                                DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.

                                                       HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

              BUCHANAN, J.

                    RUBIN, J.

                                        6