Court Opinion

ID: 9556570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 18:03:44.762878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:53.392501
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/17/23 In re O.S. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 O.S., et al.,                                           2d Juv. No. B325469
                                                           (Super. Ct. Nos. 21JV00209,
   Persons Coming Under The                                        21JV00210)
 Juvenile Court Law.                                         (Santa Barbara County)
 _____________________________

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
 SERVICES,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 C.S.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      C.S. (father) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating
his parental rights to his minor children O.S. and A.S. with a
permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.)
Father’s sole contention is that Santa Barbara County Child
Welfare Services (CWS) and the juvenile court failed to comply
with the inquiry requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act
(ICWA; 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2).2 We affirm.
            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Father is the presumed parent of O.S. and A.S. CWS filed
a section 300 petition after father surrendered the children to
social workers in May of 2021. The juvenile court ordered both
children detained. Father and mother denied Indian ancestry at
the detention hearing. The juvenile court ordered father and
mother to provide CWS with a list of maternal and paternal
relatives. It did not make findings on whether ICWA applied.
       The jurisdiction and disposition report stated mother
participated in a family assessment on June 25, 2021, but did not
answer her phone when the agency called four days later to
conduct a family finding interview. She did not return the social
worker’s voicemail. The agency located no maternal relatives
using LEXIS but eventually reached a maternal aunt and
maternal great aunt who denied Indian ancestry. Voicemails to
three maternal cousins were not returned. The agency spoke
with the paternal grandmother, but the jurisdiction and

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

      2 “[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.)

                                2
disposition report did not state whether the agency questioned
her about ancestry.
       The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition on
July 6, 2021. It found ICWA did not apply. The court terminated
mother’s reunification services at the six-month review hearing
in January of 2022. Father continued to receive them over the
next six months. The court terminated his services when he
agreed to a settlement providing him with regular supervised
visitation with O.S. and A.S.
       Father appeared for a section 366.26 permanency planning
hearing in October of 2022. Mother did not appear. CWS
requested the court either continue the case or set a pretrial
conference so the agency could make additional ICWA inquiries.
The court set a pretrial conference for December 8, 2022. CWS
later filed an addendum stating that paternal grandmother and
two maternal great aunts had denied Indian ancestry as well. At
the pretrial conference, the court reiterated ICWA did not apply
and terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights. It found
adoption to be the permanent plan for both children.
                           DISCUSSION
       Father contends the order terminating his parental rights
must be reversed and the matter remanded to the juvenile court.
He argues the court failed to comply with ICWA’s inquiry
requirements and section 224.2 because CWS did not contact four
family members who were available to provide information about
potential Indian ancestry: maternal grandmother, maternal
great-grandmother, and two paternal aunts named Jessica and
Katie. We are not persuaded.
       We generally review a juvenile court’s ICWA findings for
substantial evidence. (In re J.K. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 498, 504.)

                                3
The parties do not dispute the material facts. As such, ““‘we
review independently whether ICWA requirements have been
satisfied.”’” (Ibid.)
       ICWA defines an “‘Indian child’” as “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.S. § 1903(4) & (8); § 224.1, subd. (a).) The juvenile court
and county welfare department have an affirmative and
continuing duty to inquire whether a child subject to dependency
proceedings is or may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal.
Rules of Court, rules 5.481(a) & 5.668(c).)
       Father describes maternal grandmother and maternal
great-grandmother as “readily available” to field ICWA inquiries
because mother mentioned them during her social study/family
assessment interview on June 25, 2021. The record contradicts
this assertion. A LEXIS relative search conducted by CWS on
June 29 during its family finding efforts generated no results for
mother. Mother did not answer her phone that day or return the
social worker’s voicemail inquiring about relatives. She stopped
attending court proceedings altogether after the July 6, 2021
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. She had minimal
communication with CWS and her whereabouts became
unknown. (See In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1082,
interpreting § 224.2, subd. (b) [“we cannot ask [CWS] to intuit the
names of unidentified family members or to interview individuals
for whom no contact information has been provided”].)
       The record shows “Jessica” is the girlfriend of father’s
brother, Enrique. CWS had no reason to ask her about Indian
ancestry because Enrique denied ancestry early in the

                                4
proceedings. Paternal aunt “Katie,” was interviewed shortly
after father surrendered O.S. and A.S. but apparently not
questioned concerning ICWA. However, we conclude failing to
follow up with her is not error in these circumstances because her
mother (i.e., paternal grandmother) and two brothers (paternal
uncle Enrique and father) all denied Indian ancestry on their side
of the family.
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is
affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    CODY, J.

We concur:

      GILBERT, P.J.

      YEGAN, J.

                                5
                  Gustavo Lavayen, Judge
           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
              ______________________________

      Jacques Alexander Love, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant C.S
      Rachel Van Mullem, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein,
Senior Deputy Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.