In re Z.W. CA2/1 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/23/22 In re Z.W. 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Z.W. et al., Persons                                   B314296
    Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
    Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP02788)
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY
    DEPARTMENT OF
    CHILDREN AND FAMILY
    SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    S.R.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order establishing a legal guardianship of
    the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen C. Marpet,
    Judge Pro Tempore. Reversed with instructions.
    Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the
    Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, and Melania Vartanian, Deputy
    County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ____________________
    Mother and father have three children. The eldest was
    born in 2012, the middle in 2013, and the youngest in 2015.
    Since the beginning of the dependency proceedings, the children
    lived with their paternal grandparents. During the course of the
    dependency proceedings, the juvenile court concluded that it had
    no reason to know the children were Indian children. Mother
    appeals from the order granting paternal grandparents’ legal
    guardianship over the children.
    Mother argues that the Los Angeles County Department of
    Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with state
    law (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 224.2) implementing the Indian Child
    Welfare Act of 1978 (
    25 U.S.C. § 1901
     et seq.; ICWA).
    Specifically, mother argues that the child welfare agency should
    have interviewed her extended family members about Indian
    ancestry. Respondent counters that the error was not prejudicial
    because interviewing mother’s extended family members would
    not have produced meaningful information about the children’s
    Indian ancestry.
    Although she later denied it, mother initially indicated that
    her family may have Indian ancestry. DCFS did not ask
    1  Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and
    Institutions Code.
    2
    maternal grandmother about this apparent conflict when DCFS
    interviewed her nor did DCFS ask maternal aunt about Indian
    ancestry, even though maternal aunt monitored mother’s visits
    with the children. Based on this record, we conclude DCFS’s
    failure to ask extended family members about Indian ancestry
    was prejudicial. We thus reverse the order terminating juvenile
    court jurisdiction, conditionally affirm the order granting legal
    guardianship, and remand to the juvenile court with instructions.
    BACKGROUND
    On May 2, 2019, DCFS filed a section 300 petition. As
    later sustained, the petition alleged that mother abused
    amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and marijuana and
    was thus unable to care for her children. On appeal, mother does
    not challenge these jurisdictional findings. Her sole claim of
    error on appeal is that DCFS did not interview extended family
    members about the children’s Indian ancestry and that this
    failure was prejudicial. We thus limit our background discussion
    to the ICWA proceedings below and the court’s orders.
    On May 3, 2019, at the detention hearing, the juvenile
    court asked paternal grandmother if her family had any Indian
    heritage. Paternal grandmother denied any such ancestry, and
    the juvenile court found as to father, it had no reason to know the
    children were Indian children. The juvenile court deferred any
    ICWA determination as to mother because mother did not appear
    at the detention hearing.
    On May 30, 2019, mother told a social worker that the
    children may have Indian ancestry. Mother did not provide the
    name of any specific tribe. Mother refused to provide maternal
    grandmother’s contact information. Mother reported she would
    check with maternal grandmother about Indian ancestry and
    3
    provide additional information to the social worker. Mother
    never provided any additional information about Indian ancestry,
    and the record does not reveal whether she ever spoke with her
    grandmother about Indian ancestry.
    A social worker asked paternal grandmother if mother’s
    family had Indian ancestry. Paternal grandmother reported that
    she was not aware of any. Paternal grandmother reiterated that
    father’s side had no Indian ancestry.
    On June 10, 2019, mother filed a Judicial Council
    ICWA-020 Form (as updated January 1, 2008) indicating that she
    had no Indian ancestry as far as she knew. At a hearing on June
    10, 2019, the juvenile court asked mother if she had any Indian
    ancestry, and she indicated she did not. That same day, the court
    found no reason to know that the children were Indian children
    as to mother’s side.
    On June 12, 2019, the social worker contacted maternal
    grandmother. The record does not indicate whether the social
    worker asked maternal grandmother about Indian ancestry.
    Maternal aunt A.P. monitored mother’s visits with the children.
    There is no indication that social workers asked A.P. about
    Indian ancestry. The record also indicates that the children had
    contact with another maternal aunt, but does not disclose
    whether DCFS asked her about Indian ancestry.
    Mother did not reunify with the children. Mother lived
    with maternal grandmother during portions of the dependency
    period and at other times, enrolled in multiple drug treatment
    programs. Father did not participate in the dependency
    proceedings, during which he was incarcerated. Father had not
    seen paternal grandparents in over four years.
    4
    The children remained placed with paternal grandparents
    throughout the dependency proceedings. Paternal grandmother
    wanted to become the children’s legal guardian. Paternal
    grandmother did not want to adopt the children because she did
    not want to prevent the parents from reunifying with them in the
    future.
    At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found that
    the children were living with a relative who is unable or
    unwilling to adopt but who is willing and capable of providing the
    children with permanency through legal guardianship. The court
    ordered long-term guardianship with paternal grandparents as
    the children’s permanent plan. The court then terminated
    jurisdiction over the children. Mother appealed from the order
    setting long-term guardianship as the permanent plan.2
    DISCUSSION
    “At the outset of a dependency case, the child welfare
    agency and the juvenile court have a statutory initial duty to
    inquire into whether a child is, or may be, an Indian child. ‘The
    child welfare department’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.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re
    Darian R. (2022) 
    75 Cal.App.5th 502
    , 507 (Darian R.), fn. &
    italics omitted.) Under ICWA, the term “extended family
    2  Mother also appealed from the denial of a section 388
    motion. In her appellate briefing, however, she does not address
    this section 388 motion. We thus do not discuss it.
    5
    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).)
    The parties do not dispute that social workers should have
    interviewed maternal grandmother and maternal aunts, who
    were readily available. They only dispute whether this error was
    prejudicial.
    Respondent argues the error was not prejudicial under the
    test in In re Benjamin M. (2021) 
    70 Cal.App.5th 735
    , (Benjamin
    M.). Benjamin M. held that the failure to interview an extended
    family member about Indian ancestry is prejudicial “where the
    record indicates that there was readily obtainable information
    that was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child is an
    Indian child.” (Id. at p. 744.) The Benjamin M. court concluded
    the failure to inquire of extended family members was prejudicial
    there because the father of one of the children never appeared in
    the proceeding and father’s brother was available to ask about
    father’s Indian ancestry. Benjamin M. reasoned, “Father’s
    brother’s knowledge of his own Indian status would be suggestive
    of Father’s status. While we cannot know how Father’s brother
    would answer the inquiry, his answer is likely to bear
    meaningfully on the determination at issue about his brother.”
    (Id. at p. 745.)
    In In re A.C. (2022) 
    75 Cal.App.5th 1009
    , a majority of this
    court held the failure to ask extended family members about
    Indian ancestry was prejudicial under the circumstances of that
    case. There, on their Judicial Council ICWA forms, the parents
    6
    declined Indian ancestry, but a detention report referenced that
    the child may be an Indian child. Yet DCFS failed to interview
    readily extended family members about Indian ancestry, and
    particularly the conflicting evidence of such ancestry. The need
    to interview extended family members was all the more apparent
    because mother herself had been in foster care and arguably may
    not have been familiar with her own heritage. The majority thus
    concluded that we could not “assume that the parents’ mere
    denial of Indian ancestry on a form was sufficient to dispel
    prejudice from DCFS’s failure to ask A.C.’s extended family
    members about potential Indian ancestry.” (Id. at p. 1017.)
    In contrast, in Darian R., we rejected the mother’s claim
    that failure to interview her aunt and father, with whom she had
    lived during part of the dependency proceedings, was prejudicial
    where both parents denied Indian ancestry, 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. Under these
    circumstances, we concluded, “The record simply does not support
    mother’s unvarnished contention that additional interviews of
    mother’s father and sister would have meaningfully elucidated
    the children’s Indian ancestry.” (Darian R., supra,
    75 Cal.App.5th at p. 510; but see In re Antonio R. (2022)
    
    76 Cal.App.5th 421
    , 435 [disagreeing with Darian R.].) Similarly,
    DCFS’s failure to interview a maternal grandmother was not
    prejudicial when the maternal grandmother was incentivized
    earlier in the proceedings to reveal Indian ancestry when she,
    with the support of mother’s counsel, sought placement of the
    child in her care, yet revealed no such Indian ancestry. (In re
    7
    S.S. (2022) 
    75 Cal.App.5th 575
    , 581–582 but see In re Antonio R.,
    supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 435 [disagreeing with In re S.S.].)
    As mother argues, and we agree, this case resembles In re
    A.C. more than Darian R. and In re S.S. As in A.C., mother gave
    conflicting information about her Indian ancestry on her ICWA
    Judicial Council form and to the social worker, yet when the
    juvenile court asked mother if she had Indian ancestry, the court
    did not inquire as to mother’s conflicting descriptions of her
    ancestry. Despite this conflicting evidence, DCFS did not ask any
    of mother’s relatives about Indian ancestry even though relatives
    were readily available to DCFS. As in Benjamin M. and In re
    A.C., asking maternal relatives about Indian ancestry may have
    yielded meaningful information about the children’s Indian
    ancestry and the failure to do so was prejudicial.
    Where there is conflicting evidence about Indian ancestry,
    DCFS has a duty to obtain additional information if relatives
    are available to address a parent’s conflicting statements
    about Indian ancestry. Thus, in In re Gabriel G. (2012)
    
    206 Cal.App.4th 1160
     the father indicated on his ICWA-020 form
    that paternal grandfather may have Cherokee ancestry. (Id. at
    p. 1167.) Later, when a social worker interviewed him, father
    denied any Indian ancestry. (Ibid.) The social worker did not
    ask father about this apparent discrepancy regarding Indian
    ancestry and did not interview paternal grandfather. (Ibid.)
    Division Two of this court held: “At a minimum, a conflict in the
    evidence exists. Under these circumstances, the social worker
    had a duty of further inquiry. [Citation.] But there is nothing in
    the record to indicate the social worker interviewed anyone
    besides father . . . .” (Id. at pp. 1167–1168.) The court then
    8
    remanded the case to the juvenile court to ensure compliance
    with ICWA. (Id. at p. 1168.)
    Following In re Gabriel G., Division Eight of this court held
    in In re Josiah T. (2021) 
    71 Cal.App.5th 388
     that where seven
    months after paternal grandfather told social workers about
    Cherokee ancestry, paternal grandmother denied Indian
    ancestry, “a mere change in reporting, without more, is not an
    automatic ICWA free pass; when there is a conflict in the
    evidence and no supporting information, DCFS may not rely on
    the denial alone without making some effort to clarify the
    relative’s claim.” (Josiah T., at p. 405.) The same holds true here
    regarding mother’s conflicting statements about Indian
    ancestry.3
    3  Other appellate courts have applied a more stringent test
    of prejudice for failure to ask extended family members about
    Indian ancestry, generally finding that failure always prejudicial.
    See, e.g., In re A.R. (2022) 
    77 Cal.App.5th 197
    , 207 [“Any other
    rule would potentially make enforcement of the tribes’ rights
    dependent on the quality of the parents’ effort on appeal. . . .
    Stated plainly, it is the obligation of the government, not the
    parents in individual cases, to ensure the tribes’ interests are
    considered and protected.” ]; In re Antonio R., supra,
    76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 433–435; see also In re J.C. (2022)
    
    77 Cal.App.5th 70
    , 81–84. Under more stringent tests, the
    failure to ask extended family members about Indian ancestry
    here also would be prejudicial.
    9
    DISPOSITION
    The juvenile court’s order terminating jurisdiction is
    reversed. The order setting a permanent plan for the children is
    conditionally affirmed. The case is remanded to the juvenile
    court to direct DCFS to comply with Welfare and Institutions
    Code section 224.2 and, if applicable, section 224.3. If after
    completing the inquiry, the juvenile court finds it has no reason
    to believe or know that the children are Indian children, the
    section 366.26 guardianship order shall remain in effect and the
    juvenile court shall issue a new order terminating its jurisdiction.
    If the court finds ICWA applies, the court shall vacate its existing
    section 366.26 order and proceed in compliance with ICWA and
    related California law.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    BENDIX, Acting P. J.
    We concur:
    CHANEY, J.
    MORI, J.*
    * Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
    assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
    the California Constitution.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B314296

Filed Date: 5/23/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/23/2022