Court Opinion

ID: 9352067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 20:01:46.90592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:51.159822
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/4/23 In re K.S. 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 K.S. et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                D080842
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. EJ4615)

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

J.S.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Conditionally affirmed and remanded with directions.
         Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Dana Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
      Defendant and Appellant J.S. (Father) appeals from an order
terminating his reunification services with regard to his children K.S., J.S.,
and M.S. (collectively referred to as the children). Father argues the order
should be conditionally affirmed and remanded for compliance with the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq. (ICWA) and

Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2.1 The Agency concedes that its
ICWA inquiry was deficient and agrees a conditional affirmance is
appropriate in this case. Father and the Agency have submitted a joint
stipulation for issuance of an immediate remittitur pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1). We conditionally affirm the order
terminating Father’s reunification services with a limited remand for the
Agency to comply with ICWA and section 224.2.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      The Agency initiated these dependency proceedings on behalf of the
children under section 300, subdivision (j), alleging that one of the children
had been abused or neglected and that there was substantial risk that the
children would be abused or neglected.
                A. ICWA Inquiries Regarding Paternal Family
      Father denied having any Indian ancestry. He subsequently indicated
he believed paternal great-grandmother was part of a Cherokee tribe, but he
could not remember her name. Father stated he would ask paternal great-
aunt K.M. for paternal great-grandmother’s name. Father later reported
that paternal great-aunt K.M. was in the hospital and had Alzheimer’s, and
he was not able to ask her about ICWA.

1     All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
unless otherwise indicated.
                                       2
       Paternal half-brother G.S. indicated he did not know of any Indian
ancestry in the family, he did not know paternal great-grandmother’s name,
and he did not know paternal great-aunt K.M. or how to get in touch with
her.
       Paternal half-sister Y.S. did not know of any Indian ancestry in the
family and indicated she did not have a relationship with paternal great-aunt
K.M.
       Paternal uncle M.S. stated he believed paternal great-great-
grandmother was Indian. He stated paternal great-aunt K.M. was the only
person who would have more information but he was not able to contact her.
       Father informed the Agency that he had seven sisters, G.D., S.S-M.,
Mat.S., Mari.S., D.S., Si.S., and Marg.S., and told the Agency their names
and where they lived.
       The Agency sent relative notification letters to nine relatives with the
same last name as Father, including individuals identified as paternal aunts,
who Father did not name as one of his seven sisters: (1) paternal aunt Sa.S.;
(2) paternal aunt Me.S.; (3) paternal uncle M.S.; (4) paternal aunt Mari.S.; (5)
paternal half-brother A.S.; (6) paternal half-brother G.S.; (7) paternal half-
sister Y.S.; (8) relative F.S.; and (9) relative B.S. The purpose of these letters
was to notify the relatives that the children were in protective custody and
inquire whether the relatives were interested in placement. None of these
relatives other than paternal uncle M.S. responded to the relative notification
letters.
       The Agency spoke to another paternal aunt J.S., but there is no
indication in the record that the Agency asked her about potential Indian
ancestry. The Agency also spoke to paternal aunt E.S., who appears to be the
same person as J.S.

                                        3
               B. ICWA Inquiries Regarding Maternal Family

      Mother, B.B. (Mother)2 denied having any Indian ancestry. Maternal
grandmother reported that maternal great-great-grandmother was raised on
an Oklahoma tribe.
      The Agency mailed inquiry letters to the three Cherokee tribes:
Cherokee Nation, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma,
and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The letters list Mother, maternal
grandmother, maternal great-grandmother, and maternal great-great-
grandmother as potentially having Cherokee ancestry. The letters also
provide the names of seven maternal family members and no paternal family
members other than Father’s name. The Agency received response letters
from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the United Keetoowah Band
of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma indicating the children were not eligible for
membership in the respective tribes.
                              C. ICWA Findings
      The court found ICWA did not apply at the contested jurisdiction and
disposition hearing.
      The court again found that ICWA did not apply when the court
removed the children from Father’s and Mother’s custody.
                                DISCUSSION
      Father argues the Agency failed to comply with its initial inquiry
duties under section 224.2, subdivision (b) because it neglected to interview
paternal extended family members about the children’s possible Indian
ancestry. Father also contends the Agency failed to satisfy its further inquiry
obligations under section 224.2, subdivision (e), after receiving information
giving rise to a reason to believe the children may have Cherokee heritage

2     Mother is not a party to this appeal.
                                       4
from the paternal side of the family and Indian heritage from the maternal
side of the family stemming from an Oklahoma tribe.
                                 A. Applicable Law
      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.) Under
California law adopted pursuant to ICWA, the juvenile court and Agency
have 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.) An
“ ‘Indian child’ ” is defined in the same manner as under federal law, i.e., 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. § 1903(4);
accord Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting the federal definition].)
      As outlined by this court in In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1052
(In re D.S.), “section 224.2 creates three distinct duties regarding ICWA in
dependency proceedings. First, from the Agency’s initial contact with a
minor and his family, the statute imposes a duty of inquiry to ask all involved
persons whether the child may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, subds. (a), (b).)
Second, if that initial inquiry creates a ‘reason to believe’ the child is an
Indian child, then the Agency ‘shall make further inquiry regarding the
possible Indian status of the child, and shall make that inquiry as soon as
practicable.’ (Id., subd. (e), italics added.) Third, if that further inquiry
results in a reason to know the child is an Indian child, then the formal notice
requirements of section 224.3 apply.”
      During the first stage of initial inquiry, “[s]ection 224.2, subdivision (b)
specifies that once a child is placed into the temporary custody of a county

                                         5
welfare department, such as the Agency, the duty to inquire ‘includes, but is
not limited to, 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.’ ” (In re D.S., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1048–1049.)
      ICWA defines “ ‘extended family member’ ” by “the law or custom of the
Indian child’s tribe” or, absent such law or custom, as “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); § 224.1, subd. (c)
[“ ‘extended family member’ . . . defined as provided in [§] 1903” of ICWA].)
      After a “reason to believe” that an Indian child is involved has been
established, further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child
is required. (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The duty of further inquiry includes
(1) interviewing the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family
members; (2) contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and State
Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying the names and
contact information of the tribes in which the child may be a member, or
eligible for membership; and (3) contacting tribes and anyone else who might
have information regarding the child’s membership or eligibility in a tribe;
contact with a tribe “shall include” information identified by the tribe as
necessary for the tribe to make a membership or eligibility determination.
(Id., subd. (e)(2)(A–C).)
      “On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings for
substantial evidence.” (In re D.S., supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 1051.)
However, where the facts are undisputed, we independently determine
whether ICWA’s requirements have been satisfied. (Ibid.)

                                        6
                                 B. Initial Inquiry
      Father argues the Agency failed to satisfy its initial inquiry obligations
as to the paternal side of the family because the Agency had contact
information for, but did not attempt to interview 12 paternal family members
about the children’s potential Indian ancestry: (1) paternal aunt Sa.S.; (2)
paternal aunt Me.S.; (3) paternal aunt Mari.S.; (4) relative F.S.; (5) relative
B.S.; (6) paternal aunt G.D.; (7) paternal aunt S.S-M.; (8) paternal aunt
Mat.S.; (9) paternal aunt D.S.; (10) paternal aunt Si.S.; (11) paternal aunt
Marg.S.; and (12) paternal aunt J.S.
      In its initial inquiry, the Agency is not obligated to conduct an ICWA
inquiry of all family members—only those who qualify as “ ‘extended family
members’ ” as defined under ICWA. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1903(2); Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 224.1, subd. (c).) The relatives who are identified in the record as
paternal aunts qualify as “extended family members” under ICWA. It is not
clear from the record what relation F.S. and B.S. have to the children.
      Additionally, the Agency “is not required to ‘cast about’ for information
or pursue unproductive investigative leads.” (In re D.S., supra, 46
Cal.App.5th at p. 1053.) Regarding the first five paternal relatives identified
by Father, the record shows the Agency mailed them relative notification
letters, but received no response. Regarding the next six paternal relatives
identified by Father, the record shows Father identified them as his sisters
and informed the Agency of the city and state where they lived. It does not
appear that he provided the Agency with contact information for them. If the
Agency did not have contact information for or was not able to get into
contact with paternal family members, it was not error for the Agency to not
conduct an ICWA inquiry of those family members.

                                        7
      To the extent the Agency had contact information for, and was able to
make contact with paternal family members who qualify as “extended family
member” under ICWA, the Agency should ask them about the children’s
potential Indian ancestry on remand.
      Father also argues and the record shows the Agency spoke with

paternal aunt E.S.3 but did not ask her about the children’s potential Indian
ancestry. Because she qualifies as an “extended family member” under
ICWA, the Agency should have asked her about the children’s potential
Indian ancestry and must do so on remand.
                               C. Further Inquiry
      Father argues the Agency failed to satisfy its further inquiry
obligations because the Agency failed to include names of paternal family
members (aside from Father’s name) in the inquiry letters it sent to the three
Cherokee tribes, even though the potential Cherokee ancestry stemmed from
the paternal side of the family. Father also argues the Agency should have
sent inquiry letters to 25 other federally recognized tribes with Oklahoma in
their name because a maternal family member indicated that maternal
great-great-grandmother was raised on an Oklahoma tribe. Finally, Agency
failed to contact the BIA and the State Department of Social Services for
assistance in identifying tribes in which the children may be eligible for
membership.
      The record shows that the inquiry letters sent to the three Cherokee
tribes lists Mother, maternal grandmother, maternal great-grandmother, and
maternal great-great-grandmother as potentially having Cherokee ancestry.
Additionally, the letters list names of maternal family members, but no

3    It appears from the record that paternal aunts J.S. and E.S. are the
same person, although not identified by Father as such on appeal.
                                       8
paternal family members aside from Father’s name. Because the potential
Cherokee ancestry stems from the paternal side of the family, the Agency
should have indicated this and included names of paternal family members in
the letters to the Cherokee tribes.
      Additionally, the record shows maternal grandmother reported that she
believed maternal great-great-grandmother was raised by an Oklahoma
tribe. There are 28 Federally recognized tribes with Oklahoma in its name.
(87 Fed.Reg. 4636-4640 (Jan. 28, 2022).) Although Father indicates that the
Agency sent inquiry letters to three of these Oklahoma tribes by sending
letters to the three Cherokee tribes, only one Cherokee tribe—the United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma—has Oklahoma in its
name. Thus, the Agency should have sent inquiry letters to 27 other tribes
with Oklahoma in its name. Additionally, there may be other tribes located
in Oklahoma that do not have Oklahoma in its name. For example, Cherokee
Nation is located in Oklahoma. As such, on remand, the Agency should
investigate other tribes that are located in Oklahoma and send inquiry
letters to them. This investigation should include contacting the BIA and
State Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying those tribes.
(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(B).)
                                DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s order terminating Father’s reunification services is
conditionally affirmed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court with
directions for the Agency to comply with the inquiry provisions of ICWA and
section 224.2 (and, if applicable, the notice provisions under section 224.3).
If, after completing its inquiry, neither the Agency nor the juvenile court has
reason to believe or reason to know the children are Indian children, the
order shall be reinstated. If the Agency or the juvenile court has reason to

                                        9
know the children are Indian children, the Agency and the juvenile court
shall proceed accordingly. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

                                                          McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

DO, J.

                                      10