In re Lea S. CA2/8 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/18/21 In re Lea S. CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
    In re LEA S. et al., Persons Coming                                   B309813
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                    (Los Angeles County
    DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                                Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP04944A–B)
    AND FAMILY SERVICES,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.
    K.K.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
    County. Brett Bianco, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part
    and remanded.
    Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
    Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County
    Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over
    Lea S. (born 2016) and Naomi S. (born 2018) after parents K.K.
    (mother) and K.S. (father) were arrested for leaving the children
    alone in a locked vehicle with an outside temperature of 99
    degrees and an interior temperature of 111 degrees. The court
    also sustained allegations both parents abused marijuana while
    caring for the children. After the parents failed to reunify with
    the children, the court terminated their parental rights and
    approved the children for adoption.
    Mother appeals, contending the court erred by
    (1) summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section
    3881 petition requesting further reunification services;
    (2) denying the application of the beneficial parental relationship
    exception to adoption; and (3) failing to conduct adequate inquiry
    under the Indian Child Welfare Act (
    25 U.S.C. § 1901
     et seq.;
    ICWA). We reject the first two contentions. Respondent Los
    Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
    (DCFS) concedes the ICWA error, so we conditionally reverse the
    order terminating parental rights and remand with directions to
    comply with ICWA inquiry requirements.
    BACKGROUND
    Jurisdiction and Disposition
    The family came to the attention of DCFS when, on August
    1, 2019, the parents left the children in a vehicle alone on a hot
    day with the windows open three inches while the parents went
    into a store to buy beer. The children were red and sweating
    profusely, with temperatures outside at 98 degrees and inside at
    111 degrees. Naomi was banging on the window and crying.
    1       Statutory citations refer to the Welfare and Institutions
    Code.
    2
    Bystanders had to break out the vehicle’s window to remove the
    children.
    Police responded and arrested the parents for child
    endangerment. Security video from the store showed the parents
    inside the store for around 10 minutes. The inside of the parents’
    vehicle was dirty, with trash and clothes strewn about.
    The parents appeared disheveled, and the children were dirty.
    Police suspected the family was living in the vehicle.
    A social worker interviewed mother. She reported the
    parents had gone into the store to buy beer, claiming they had
    only been gone “two to five minutes.” She called her lapse in
    judgment a “mistake” and said the children were fine. She
    reported she and father drank beer and smoked marijuana, but
    not while caring for the children.
    The social worker also interviewed father. He claimed he
    and mother were in the store for about two and a half minutes.
    He admitted he and mother drank beer on the weekends and he
    had smoked marijuana two days earlier.
    DCFS filed a petition alleging three counts of neglect
    pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). Count b-1 alleged the
    parents placed the children in a detrimental and endangering
    situation when they left the children alone in a vehicle with the
    temperature outside at 98 degrees and the temperature inside at
    111 degrees. Counts b-2 and b-3 alleged the parents were current
    marijuana abusers and were under the influence while caring for
    the young children.
    The court ordered the children detained from the parents
    and granted the parents monitored visitation. However, the
    criminal court had issued a protective order in favor of the
    3
    children and against the parents, so visits could not begin until
    that order was modified.
    The children were initially placed with a paternal great
    aunt, but she could not care for them, so they were moved.
    The paternal grandparents lived in Delaware; they expressed
    interest in moving to California and caring for the children.
    At the adjudication hearing held on September 10, 2019,
    the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition and set the
    matter for disposition.
    In August and September 2019, mother had three positive
    drug tests and failed to show for two tests. Father had two
    positive drug tests and failed to show for two tests. In October
    2019, mother had three negative weekly drug tests and father
    had four negative weekly drug tests.
    During the parents’ criminal proceeding, the criminal court
    ordered them to complete a year of parenting classes. The
    protective order was also modified to allow the parents peaceful
    contact with the children, enabling monitored visitation. DCFS
    reported in October 2019 the parents consistently attended
    monitored visitation with the children. The children were
    hesitant to engage with the parents and appeared unfamiliar
    with them, although the children were getting more comfortable.
    At the disposition hearing on November 5, 2019, the court
    declared the children dependents and removed them from the
    parents. The court ordered reunification services for the parents,
    including a full drug program, drug testing, aftercare, a 12-step
    program, Alanon, a parenting program, and individual
    counseling. The court granted monitored visitation as permitted
    by the criminal court.
    4
    Reunification Period
    The criminal court convicted the parents of child
    endangerment. It granted them probation and community
    service; it ordered them to complete a 52-week parenting
    program, to comply with DCFS, and not to leave the children
    unattended; and it issued a protective order in favor of the
    children through 2022.
    The paternal grandparents had not moved to California,
    so the children remained with their foster parents, who were
    designated as foster-adopt caregivers. The children were
    thriving. The foster parents fulfilled the children’s basic needs;
    they advocated for specialized medical, mental health, and
    academic needs; and they facilitated visitation. The children
    received in-home individual counseling. Naomi received speech
    services. Lea was potty-trained. The children appeared happy
    and attached to the foster parents.
    During this period, the parents missed a few monitored
    visits and nearly half of their weekly drug tests. Father had not
    enrolled in any court-ordered programs. Mother had enrolled in
    an outpatient substance abuse program but declined two
    drug/alcohol tests for the program and missed eight of her weekly
    tests for DCFS. During early visits with the children, the
    parents did not interact much with them but improved during
    later visits. Between December 2019 and March 2020, the
    parents engaged well with the children during visits, playing
    games, looking at picture books, and bringing snacks. When
    visits switched to video calls in March 2020 due to the COVID-19
    pandemic, the children initially had trouble engaging, but they
    improved.
    5
    The court ultimately terminated reunification services on
    August 31, 2020, finding the parents failed to make substantial
    progress in their case plans. Mother objected to the termination
    of services. The court set a hearing under section 366.26.
    Permanency Planning Period
    The children began preschool in September 2020.
    Naomi continued in-home speech and occupational therapy
    services. The parents continued drug testing with negative test
    results. Mother tested positive for alcohol through her substance
    abuse treatment program on September 30, 2020.
    The parents continued in-person and virtual visits.
    The foster parents reported the children did not engage with the
    parents and became irritable after a few minutes. During one
    visit, the children said they did not want to engage with the
    parents and the parents did not speak for most of the visit.
    Afterward, the children had elevated emotions and struggled to
    sit for dinner or calm down for bedtime. The next week, Naomi
    did not engage with the parents, but Lea remained engaged for
    the full 30 minutes. Afterward, Naomi was irritable and
    struggled to fall asleep.
    During virtual visits in December 2020, the children varied
    between engagement and screaming and running off screen.
    After each visit, they were dysregulated. Without prompting,
    Lea said she did not want to have visits with the parents
    anymore. The visitation monitor noted during in-person visits at
    this time the parents were unable to redirect the children and
    had trouble engaging them outside of playing with a phone.
    Naomi experienced downward spirals after visits, including
    anger, hitting, nightmares, and screaming at nighttime. She was
    having accidents and refusing food. Lea appeared sadder and
    6
    clung to the foster parents, telling them she did not want to see
    the parents. When the paternal grandparents appeared
    unexpectedly for a virtual visit, Naomi cried for food and was
    inconsolable. She spent the rest of the visit off screen cuddling
    with her foster mother.
    The parents missed three virtual visits in September 2020,
    three in October 2020, one in November 2020, and three in
    December 2020.
    By November 2020, the paternal grandparents still had not
    moved to California, but continued to express their wish to
    become legal guardians over the children.
    The children’s therapist reported they were participating in
    psychotherapy with the foster parents and were progressing
    toward their objectives. Naomi improved her reflexes and
    sensory processing issues. The foster parents had been
    instrumental in implementing the therapist’s suggestions during
    the week.
    DCFS recommended the court terminate parental rights.
    The foster parents wanted to adopt the children, and their home
    study was approved. In the view of DCFS, the foster parents had
    “demonstrated their ongoing love for the children and their
    unwavering commitment to provide the children with a stable
    home through adoption.” The children called them “mom” and
    “dad.”
    Mother’s Section 388 Petition and Termination of Parental
    Rights
    On January 5, 2021, mother filed a petition pursuant to
    section 388 to modify the order terminating reunification services
    and to grant her additional services. She reported, “I have
    completed a full drug program during which I tested clean, a
    7
    parenting program, I have a sponsor, I have participated in the
    12 Step Program, AA/NA Zoom meetings. I would be starting an
    aftercare program. I have also participated in individual
    counseling.” She claimed the modification was in the children’s
    best interests because she had “maintained a strong bond with
    my children and it would be in their best interests to be raised by
    their mother. I would like an opportunity to reunify with them
    and to raise them, in a loving nurturing home. I have learned a
    lot from my classes and realize I made a terrible mistake that
    I would never repeat.”
    The petition included supporting documentation. As
    reflected in the test results mother submitted, she tested positive
    for cocaine on August 4, 2020 and tested positive for alcohol on
    September 30, 2020.
    At the combined hearing on mother’s section 388 petition
    and termination of parental rights pursuant to section 366.26,
    mother’s counsel noted the section 388 petition was late and
    requested a continuance. DCFS’s counsel did not oppose the
    continuance and noted it was not ready to argue. Nevertheless,
    the court accepted the late-filed petition and denied the
    continuance. The court noted a late-filed petition is “taken with a
    dose of skepticism and is not a good cause for a continuance.
    We’re concerned here with expedience hearing of cases to provide
    stability and permanency for children and a continuance on these
    facts would not be consistent with those objectives.”
    The court denied the section 388 motion, reasoning:
    “It may be true that mother is now having a wake up moment
    that circumstances are beginning to change—and hopefully that
    is the case that she will for the sake of herself and those around
    her take these issues seriously and continue to work on her path
    8
    towards recovery, but it cannot be said that there’s a change in
    circumstances.
    “Nor could it be said it would be in the minor’s best interest
    to delay permanency and stability any further. So for those
    reasons and the fact that the 388 was untimely—for all of those
    reason[s], the 388 is denied.”
    The court found the children were adoptable and no
    exception to adoption applied. It reasoned the parents did not
    maintain regular visitation, so they did not establish a bond with
    the children. Further, the benefits of adoption outweighed the
    benefits from their parental relationship, so adoption was in their
    best interests. And returning the children to the parents would
    be detrimental to them. The court terminated the parents’ rights
    and designated the current foster parents as the prospective
    adoptive parents.
    DISCUSSION
    I.     The Court Properly Denied the Section 388 Petition
    Mother contends the juvenile court improperly denied her
    section 388 petition without holding a hearing. We review the
    denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. (In re
    Anthony W. (2001) 
    87 Cal.App.4th 246
    , 250.) We find none.
    Section 388 allows a parent to petition the court to modify
    or set aside a previous order due to changed circumstances or
    new evidence. The petition must be verified and “shall set forth
    in concise language any change of circumstances or new evidence
    which are alleged to require such change of order or termination
    of jurisdiction.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).)
    A parent seeking to modify an order must “ ‘make a prima
    facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full
    hearing.’ ” (In re Anthony W., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 250.)
    9
    That showing has two parts: “(1) a genuine change of
    circumstances or new evidence” and “(2) revoking the previous
    order would be in the best interests of the children.” (Ibid.)
    “If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not show
    changed circumstances such that the child’s best interests will be
    promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court
    need not order a hearing.” (Ibid.)
    The juvenile court acted within its discretion in concluding
    mother’s petition did not set forth a prima facie showing of
    changed circumstances. Mother’s progress in her programs since
    termination of reunification services was commendable, but
    incomplete. Although she claimed she completed a drug program
    and tested clean, her own supporting documentation showed she
    tested positive for cocaine on August 5, 2020—just a few weeks
    before the court terminated reunification services on August 31,
    2020—and she tested positive for alcohol on September 30, 2020.
    There is indication in the record she had not completed her
    substance abuse program. She said she “would be starting an
    aftercare program,” indicating she had not started the program,
    let alone made progress in it. Nor had she progressed beyond
    monitored visitation with the children.
    Mother’s progress came only after the court terminated
    reunification services, suggesting she did, in fact, have a “wake
    up moment,” as the juvenile court noted. But at that point it was
    too late. “Once reunification services are ordered terminated, the
    focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and
    stability.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 
    5 Cal.4th 295
    , 309.) Mother
    had more than 12 months after the children’s removal to address
    the issues that brought them into the dependency system. Her
    efforts were lackluster. She missed visits and missed eight drug
    10
    tests. At the visits she did attend, the children had trouble
    engaging, although they improved over time.
    After reunification services were terminated, the quality of
    the visits degraded. The children did not want to engage with
    the parents and became dysregulated after the visits, causing
    trouble for them at dinner and bedtime. Unprompted, Lea
    expressed she did not want to visit with the parents anymore.
    Naomi experienced downward spirals after visits, including
    anger, hitting, nightmares, and screaming at nighttime. She was
    having accidents and refusing food. Lea appeared sadder and
    clung to the foster parents, telling them she did not want to see
    the parents. For mother’s part, she missed 10 virtual visits
    between September and December 2020.
    Mother argues she showed changed circumstances because
    “substantial compliance is compliance” with her reunification
    plan, citing Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004) 
    117 Cal.App.4th 1322
    , 1341. That case did not involve a section 388 petition, so it
    has little bearing on the issue here. In any case, even if that
    were the standard, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
    in finding no prima facie case of even “substantial compliance”
    based on the record here.
    Nor did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in finding
    mother failed to show an extension of reunification served the
    children’s best interests. The children were thriving with their
    foster-to-adopt parents, who were dedicated to supporting them
    and helping them progress in their therapy and other services.
    The children viewed them as their parents, calling them “mom”
    and “dad.” In her petition, mother claimed she had established a
    bond with the children, but she offered no evidence to support
    that conclusory claim. The record shows the contrary. “At this
    11
    point in the proceedings, on the eve of the selection and
    implementation hearing, the children’s interest in stability was
    the court’s foremost concern, outweighing any interest mother
    may have in reunification.” (In re Anthony W., supra, 87
    Cal.App.4th at pp. 251–252.)
    Mother argues the following “best interest” factors set forth
    in In re Kimberly F. (1997) 
    56 Cal.App.4th 519
    , 532 supported
    modifying the order terminating reunification: “(1) the
    seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the
    reason for any continuation of the problem; (2) the strength of
    relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent
    and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be
    easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it
    actually has been.” These factors have been criticized for failing
    to account for the focus on the children’s interest in stability after
    reunification services have been terminated. (See In re J.C.
    (2014) 
    226 Cal.App.4th 503
    , 527.) In any case, the factors
    supported denial of mother’s section 388 petition here.
    The parents’ neglect was serious—they left their young children
    alone in a locked, dangerously hot vehicle so they could buy beer.
    They struggled with drug and alcohol abuse. These problems
    were undoubtedly challenging, and mother had only begun to
    address them. In contrast, the children’s bond with their foster
    parents was strong while their bond with mother was weak and
    appeared to be getting weaker. We cannot say the juvenile court
    abused its discretion in summarily denying the section 388
    petition without a hearing.2
    2      Mother finds it troubling the juvenile court viewed her late-
    filed section 388 petition with “a dose of skepticism.” We cannot
    be sure what exactly the court meant by that comment.
    12
    II.    The Parental Bond Exception to Adoption Did Not
    Apply
    Mother contends the juvenile court should have applied the
    beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption found in
    section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). This exception requires a
    parent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “the
    parent has regularly visited with the child, that the child would
    benefit from continuing the relationship, and that terminating
    the relationship would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Caden
    C. (2021) 
    11 Cal.5th 614
    , 629.) As our high court recently
    clarified, the statute sets out three elements: “(1) regular
    visitation and contact and (2) a relationship, the continuation of
    which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of
    parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Id. at p. 631.)
    The first element looks to whether the parents visit
    consistently, to the extent permitted by court orders. (In re
    Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) Courts must consider this
    element through the lens of the best interests of the child, that is,
    how visits facilitate the development of significant and positive
    emotional attachment between the parent and child. (Ibid.)
    The second element looks to whether the child would
    benefit from continuing the parental relationship. (In re Caden
    C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) “[T]he relationship may be
    shaped by a slew of factors, such as ‘[t]he age of the child, the
    portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the
    Nevertheless, whether or not viewed with “a dose of skepticism,”
    mother’s petition did not set forth a prima facie case to justify
    holding a hearing so the court acted within its discretion in
    summarily denying it.
    13
    “positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between the parent
    and child, and the child’s particular needs.’ ” (Ibid.)
    Finally, the third element requires the court to decide
    “whether it would be harmful to the child to sever the
    relationship and choose adoption.” (In re Caden C., supra, 11
    Cal.5th at p. 633.) The court must look to “how the child would
    be affected by losing the parental relationship—in effect, what
    life would be like for the child in an adoptive home without the
    parent in the child’s life.” (Ibid.) For this element, the court
    must examine “whether the harm of severing the relationship
    outweighs ‘the security and the sense of belonging a new family
    would confer.’ [Citation.] ‘If severing the natural parent/child
    relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive
    emotional attachment such that,’ even considering the benefits of
    a new adoptive home, termination would ‘harm[]’ the child, the
    court should not terminate parental rights.” (Id. at p. 633.)
    Our review combines both substantial evidence and abuse
    of discretion standards. We review the factual findings on the
    first two elements for substantial evidence. (In re Caden C.,
    supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 639.) We review the juvenile court’s
    determination of the third element—the detriment to the child
    from the termination of parental rights—for abuse of discretion.
    (Id. at p. 640.) Although two standards are involved, this
    “hybrid” standard of review “simply embodies the principle that
    ‘[t]he statutory scheme does not authorize a reviewing court to
    substitute its own judgment as to what is in the child’s best
    interests for the trial court’s determination in that regard,
    reached pursuant to the statutory scheme’s comprehensive and
    controlling provisions.’ ” (Id. at p. 641.)
    14
    Although mother missed a few monitored visits during the
    reunification period and missed 10 virtual visits during the
    permanency placement period, DCFS does not press the
    visitation element on appeal. Following DCFS’s lead, we will
    assume mother satisfied the first element of consistent visitation.
    She has failed to demonstrate the other two elements.
    Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding
    the children would not benefit from a continuing relationship
    with mother. The children were relatively young when they were
    removed from the parents’ custody—ages 3 and 18 months. After
    they were removed, they never appeared entirely comfortable
    visiting with the parents, let alone bonded with them. As early
    as October 2019, the children were hesitant to engage with the
    parents and appeared unfamiliar with them. At the outset of the
    reunification period, the parents did not interact much with them
    during visits. When visits switched to video calls in March 2020
    due to the COVID-19 pandemic—which assuredly presented
    challenges to both the parents and children—the children again
    had trouble engaging. The children and parents were both
    improving during visits over this period, although that
    improvement did not prevent the juvenile court from terminated
    reunification services in August 2020.
    Then, as outlined in the previous section, the parents’
    relationship with the children deteriorated. Clearly, the parents’
    visits were negatively affecting them. Lea went so far as to say
    she did not want to visit the parents anymore. Mother’s 10
    missed virtual visits near the end of 2020 deprived the family of
    more opportunities to create a bond. Rather than creating
    beneficial parent-child relationship, mother’s interaction with the
    children appeared to have a detrimental effect on them.
    15
    For similar reasons, the juvenile court acted within its
    discretion in finding no harm to the children from severing their
    relationship with mother. The children were clearly bonded with
    the foster parents, calling them “mom” and “dad” and seeking
    their comfort during and after visits with the parents. The foster
    parents were dedicated to supporting the children’s development
    and ensuring they received the services they needed. The
    children were thriving in their care. Weighed against the
    evidence that mother lacked a strong bond with the children, this
    evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that severing the
    parent/child relationship would not “ ‘deprive the child of a
    substantial, positive emotional attachment such that,’ even
    considering the benefits of a new adoptive home, termination
    would ‘harm[]’ the child.” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
    p. 633.)
    III. DCFS’s ICWA Inquiry Was Inadequate
    Mother contends DCFS did not conduct sufficient inquiry
    under ICWA regarding father’s possible Native American
    heritage before the juvenile court found the children were not
    Indian children.3 DCFS concedes its inquiry was inadequate.
    We will therefore conditionally reverse the order terminating
    parental rights and remand for further proceedings consistent
    with ICWA requirements.
    ICWA Proceedings
    When the children were detained, mother denied any
    Native American heritage. Father reported he had Native
    American heritage with the “Natico Tribe.” He was not
    3     Although mother does not claim any Indian ancestry, she
    may raise ICWA notice errors on appeal related to father. (In re
    A.W. (2019) 
    38 Cal.App.5th 655
    , 663.)
    16
    registered and did not know if the paternal grandparents were
    registered.
    Mother filed an ICWA-020 form indicating she had no
    known Indian ancestry. The juvenile court found it had no
    reason to know ICWA applied as to mother.
    Father filed an ICWA-020 form claiming he was a member
    of or eligible for membership with the “Nanticoke” tribe.
    He claimed his great-great grandmother Nancy S. was a member
    of the tribe. The juvenile court ordered DCFS to investigate the
    claim.
    DCFS submitted ICWA notices to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, and three Cherokee tribes.
    They indicated the children’s possible membership in the
    Cherokee and “Naticoke” tribes. “Naticoke” was an apparent
    misspelling of the Nanticoke tribe. The notices listed father’s
    parents and grandparents, but not father’s great-great
    grandmother Nancy S. For father’s mother, the notices listed a
    phone number and potential membership in the Cherokee and
    “Naticoke” tribes. For father’s father, the notices listed only a
    birthplace of Maryland or Atlantic City. For one set of father’s
    grandparents, the notices listed a birth date, a birth location of
    Delaware, and membership in the “Naticoke” tribe for father’s
    grandmother, and listed a partial birth date, date of death, and
    membership in the Cherokee tribe for father’s grandfather. For
    father’s other set of grandparents, the notices listed only their
    names.
    In October 2019, DCFS reported it had contacted the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the United Keetoowah Band
    of Cherokee Indians, and the Cherokee nation for updates on the
    ICWA notices. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians responded
    17
    in a letter that the children were not Indian children. At that
    point, DCFS had received no response from the other tribes.
    DCFS reported the “Naticoke” tribe was not a federally
    recognized tribe, so it sent notices to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and the Department of the Interior.
    Based on this record, at the November 5, 2019 disposition
    hearing, the juvenile court found it had no reason to know the
    children were Indian children.
    Current ICWA Law
    ICWA applies to “ ‘an unmarried individual under age 18
    who is either a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or
    is eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe and is
    the biological child of a member of a federally recognized tribe.’ ”
    (In re A.M. (2020) 
    47 Cal.App.5th 303
    , 315; see § 224.1, subd. (b).)
    Throughout dependency proceedings, an agency has “an
    affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for
    whom a petition under section 300 . . . may be or has been filed,
    is or may be an Indian child. The duty of inquiry begins with the
    initial contact, including, but not limited to, asking the party
    reporting the child abuse or neglect whether he or she has any
    information that the child may be an Indian child.” (§ 224.2,
    subd. (a); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a).)
    If the child is placed in custody of the agency, the agency
    “has a duty to inquire whether that child is an Indian child.
    Inquiry 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 and where the child, the parents, or Indian custodian is
    domiciled.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).)
    18
    At the first court appearance of the parties, “the court shall
    ask each participant present in the hearing whether the
    participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an
    Indian child. The court shall instruct the parties to inform the
    court if they subsequently receive information that provides
    reason to know the child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (c).)
    As of recent amendments effective January 2019, state law
    dictates that a court or agency has “reason to know” a child is an
    Indian child if, inter alia, “[a] person having an interest in the
    child, including the child, an officer of the court, a tribe, an
    Indian organization, a public or private agency, or a member of
    the child’s extended family informs the court that the child is an
    Indian child,” or “[a]ny participant in the proceeding, officer of
    the court, Indian tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs
    the court that it has discovered information indicating that the
    child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subds. (d)(1), (3).)
    If the court or social worker has “reason to believe” that an
    Indian child is involved in the proceeding, the court or social
    worker “shall make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian
    status of the child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e).) The phrase “reason to
    believe” was not statutorily defined in the 2019 amendments,
    although it is now.4 Once there is a “reason to believe” a child
    4      Section 224.2, subdivision (e) was amended effective
    September 18, 2020 to define information triggering a “reason to
    believe” as “information suggesting that either the parent of the
    child or the child is a member or may be eligible for membership
    in an Indian tribe. Information suggesting membership or
    eligibility for membership includes, but is not limited to,
    information that indicates, but does not establish, the existence
    of one or more of the grounds for reason to know enumerated in
    paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (d).” (Stats. 2020,
    19
    may be an Indian child, the new law sets out the steps for the
    agency’s inquiry, including, “(A) Interviewing the parents,
    Indian custodian, and extended family members to gather the
    information required in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section
    224.3 [information required in ICWA notice]. [¶] (B) Contacting
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 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 in, and contacting the tribes and any
    other person that may reasonably be expected to have
    information regarding the child’s membership status or
    eligibility. [¶] (C) Contacting the tribe or tribes and any other
    person that may reasonably be expected to have information
    regarding the child’s membership, citizenship status, or
    eligibility. . . . Contact with a tribe shall include sharing
    information identified by the tribe as necessary for the tribe to
    make a membership or eligibility determination, as well as
    information on the current status of the child and the case.”
    (§ 224.2, subd. (e).)
    Once ICWA notice is triggered, “the notice to the tribe must
    include a wide range of information about relatives, including
    grandparents and great-grandparents, to enable the tribe to
    properly identify the children’s Indian ancestry.” (In re A.M.,
    supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 317.) That information includes “
    ‘[a]ll names known of the Indian child’s biological parents,
    grandparents, and great-grandparents, or Indian custodians,
    ch. 104, § 15.) The court in this case made the ICWA
    determination prior to this amendment, so the version in effect at
    that time applies. (See In re T.G. (2020) 
    58 Cal.App.5th 275
    , 290,
    fn. 14.)
    20
    including maiden, married, and former names or aliases, as well
    as their current and former addresses, birth dates, places of birth
    and death, tribal enrollment information of other direct lineal
    ancestors of the child, and any other identifying information, if
    known.’ ” (Ibid., quoting § 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(C).) “ ‘Any violation
    of this policy requires the appellate court to vacate the offending
    order and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent
    with ICWA requirements.’ ” (In re A.M., supra, at p. 317.)
    We review the juvenile court’s finding that sufficient
    inquiry was made under ICWA for substantial evidence. (In re
    D.N. (2013) 
    218 Cal.App.4th 1246
    , 1251.)
    ICWA Inquiry
    DCFS concedes it did not follow the statutory dictates for
    sufficient ICWA inquiry in this case. Father’s ICWA-020 form
    listed the Nanticoke tribe and identified his great-great
    grandmother as a member. There is no dispute that created a
    “reason to believe” the children might have been Indian children,
    triggering an obligation for further inquiry. DCFS was required
    to interview “the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family
    members to gather the information” for ICWA notices. (§ 224.2,
    subd. (e).) The record does not disclose DCFS interviewed any
    paternal family members to gather information related to the
    children’s Indian status, even though a paternal great aunt and
    the paternal grandparents were both involved in the case and
    available to DCFS.
    The notices sent to the Cherokee tribes, the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, and the Department of the Interior were also
    deficient. The notices misspelled the Nanticoke tribe, and
    provided little to no information on father’s parents and
    grandparents beyond their names. At a minimum, the notices
    21
    should have identified father’s relatives’ “ ‘maiden, married, and
    former names or aliases, as well as their current and former
    addresses, birth dates, places of birth and death, tribal
    enrollment information of other direct lineal ancestors of the
    child, and any other identifying information, if known.’ ”
    (In re A.M., supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 317, quoting § 224.3,
    subd. (a)(5)(C).)
    Mother argues DCFS failed to include father’s great-great
    grandmother Nancy S. in the ICWA notices. She would be the
    children’s great-great-great grandmother. Such a distant relative
    is not listed in section 224.3 alongside the relatives who must be
    included in ICWA notices. (§ 224.3, subd. (a)(5)(C) [listing the
    Indian child’s biological parents, grandparents, and great-
    grandparents for ICWA notices]; see In re D.N., supra, 218
    Cal.App.4th at p. 1252 [information about children’s great-great
    grandmother not required for ICWA notices].)
    Nevertheless, “[n]otice given by DCFS pursuant to ICWA
    must contain enough information to permit the tribe to conduct a
    meaningful review of its records to determine the child’s
    eligibility for membership.” (In re S.E. (2013) 
    217 Cal.App.4th 610
    , 615.) When DCFS has been given specific information that a
    more distant relative is a member of an Indian tribe, the
    inclusion of that information in ICWA notices is “required
    regardless of the lack of a preprinted line on the Judicial Council
    form asking for it.” (Id. at pp. 615–616 [requiring ICWA notices
    to include child’s great-great grandfather, whom mother claimed
    was Native American]; see In re E.H. (2018) 
    26 Cal.App.5th 1058
    ,
    1073 [interpreting federal ICWA regulations to require notice to
    include child’s great-great grandparent’s information].) Father
    specifically informed DCFS his great-great grandmother was a
    22
    member of the Nanticoke tribe, and he provided her name.
    DCFS should have included that information in the ICWA notices
    it sent.
    Mother also asserts in her brief on appeal that no notice
    was sent to the Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma, which she
    claims is federally recognized and includes the Nanticoke tribe.
    She is right there is no such notice in the record, but she cites no
    evidence to support her assertions that (1) the Delaware Tribe of
    Indians, Oklahoma is federally recognized and (2) the Nanticoke
    tribe is part of it. She may be right on both points; DCFS
    concedes in passing that notice must be sent to the Delaware
    Tribe of Indians. However, without more thorough briefing or
    evidentiary support, we will not direct notice to be given to the
    Delaware Tribe of Indians. The juvenile court may do so if
    appropriate when it addresses these issues on remand.
    To summarize, on remand, DCFS must interview the
    paternal great aunt and paternal grandparents, as well as any
    other relatives who may have relevant information about the
    children’s Indian status. Once DCFS conducts this further
    inquiry, it must send new notices to the relevant tribes and
    entities containing the biographical information it has collected
    regarding father’s relatives. The notices must include father’s
    great-great grandmother Nancy S. and any of her identifying
    information DCFS has collected. The juvenile court should
    address on remand whether notice to the Delaware Tribe of
    Indians is required.
    23
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying mother’s section 388 petition is affirmed.
    The order terminating parental rights is conditionally reversed.
    The matter is remanded for further proceedings to satisfy ICWA
    requirements. Should the juvenile court conclude ICWA does not
    apply and the children are not Indian children, it should
    reinstate the order terminating parental rights. If a tribe
    indicates the children are Indian children, the juvenile court
    should conduct further proceedings in compliance with ICWA.
    In all other respects, the order terminating parental rights
    is affirmed.
    OHTA, J. *
    We Concur:
    GRIMES, Acting P. J.
    STRATTON, J.
    *     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
    Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
    Constitution.
    24
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B309813

Filed Date: 10/18/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2021