In re Natalie P. CA4/1 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/6/15 In re Natalie P. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 NATALIE P., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    D067689
    SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
    (Super. Ct. No. EJ3869)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    ERIKA P.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M.
    Bubis, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
    Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
    Counsel, and Emily K. Harlan, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Erika P. appeals following the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in the
    juvenile dependency case of her daughter, Natalie P. Erika contends the juvenile court
    erred by finding the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency)
    substantially complied with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (
    25 U.S.C. § 1901
     et
    seq.) and ICWA did not apply. The Agency concedes ICWA notice should have been
    sent to the Cherokee tribe, the ICWA-030 form (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(4)(A)
    [Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child]) was incomplete and contained
    typographical errors, and a reversal and a limited remand is necessary to effect and
    document proper ICWA notice.
    In January 2015, the Agency filed a dependency petition for four-year-old Natalie.
    Natalie was detained with the paternal grandmother. In the detention report, the Agency
    noted that because Natalie's father (the father) was deceased, relatives would need to be
    asked about any Indian ancestry. On the day of the detention hearing, Erika completed
    an ICWA-020 form (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(2) [Parental Notification of Indian
    Status]) in which she declared she might have Cherokee ancestry and a parentage inquiry
    in which she declared the father did not have any Indian heritage. The court ordered her
    to complete an ICWA-30 form and provide it to the Agency. The court ordered the
    Agency to give notice to the appropriate tribes and agencies.
    A few days after the detention hearing, the maternal grandmother told the Agency
    she was adopted, her birth family had Cherokee heritage and she did not know her birth
    name or the names of any members of her birth family. The Agency asked Erika and the
    maternal grandmother to complete and return the ICWA-030 form.
    2
    At the next hearing, in February 2015, the court ordered Erika and the maternal
    grandmother to assist the Agency in completing the ICWA-030 form. The court ordered
    the Agency to give notice to the appropriate tribes and any appropriate agencies.
    Nine days after the February 2015 hearing, the Agency mailed an ICWA-030 form
    to Erika, the Sacramento Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the United
    States Secretary of the Interior. On the form, the Agency misspelled the maternal
    grandmother's surname. The form stated that neither Erika nor the maternal grandmother
    had named a tribe.
    In March 2015, the court found there had been substantial compliance with ICWA
    and ICWA did not apply. The court made a true finding on the petition and ordered
    Natalie placed with a relative.
    The Agency did not send ICWA notice to any of the federally recognized
    Cherokee tribes (
    78 Fed. Reg. 26384
    -02 (May 6, 2013)). The ICWA-030 form was
    incomplete and contained a typographical error. The record contains no evidence of any
    inquiry whether the father had Indian ancestry. We reverse the judgment and remand the
    case for the required ICWA inquiry and notice. (In re Robert A. (2007) 
    147 Cal.App.4th 982
    , 989-990.)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded to the juvenile court with
    directions to order the Agency to (1) conduct an ICWA inquiry; (2) provide ICWA notice
    to any tribes the inquiry identifies; and (3) file all required documentation with the court.
    If, after proper notice, a tribe claims Natalie is an Indian child, the court shall proceed in
    3
    conformity with ICWA. If, on the other hand, no tribe makes such a claim, the court
    shall reinstate the judgment. The remittitur is to issue immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court,
    rule 8.272(c)(1).)
    McDONALD, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    BENKE, Acting P. J.
    HUFFMAN, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D067689

Filed Date: 7/6/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021