In re R.Z. CA4/2

Filed 5/5/23 In re R.Z. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re R.Z., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E080360
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J286515)
v. OPINION
D.G. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,
Judge. Affirmed.
Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant D.G.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant V.Z.
1
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Kaleigh Ragon, Deputy County Counsel for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendants and appellants
V.Z. (Mother) and D.G. (Father) to their daughter, R.Z. (Minor).1 , 2 Father contends
there is an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) error because the record does not indicate
what, if any, information San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the
Department) shared with the Blackfeet Tribe when inquiring about Minor’s possible
Indian ancestry. Mother joins in Father’s contention. We affirm the order.
FACTS
The Department asked a friend of Father’s family (Friend) whether Father had
Native American ancestry. Friend then asked Minor’s paternal aunt (Aunt) whether
Father had Native American ancestry. Friend relayed to the Department that Aunt said,
“ ‘ “I think so, because [Father’s] grandfather . . . was almost 100% Blackfoot. He was
born in Alabama. His great-grandfather . . . was (almost) 100% Blackfoot. His wife . . .
was French and had No Native American Indian [sic] ancestry.” ’ ”
The Department contacted Aunt directly and she “provided dates of birth and the
birth place [sic] for her father and the paternal great-grandfather, however [Aunt] was
unable to provide documentation or confirm . . . Native American Ancestry.”
1 The juvenile court found Father is Minor’s biological father.
2 Minor has a half brother who is not part of this appeal.
2
On September 29, 2022, the Department telephoned the Blackfeet Tribe 3 and
was informed that the Tribe required requests for membership information to be in
writing. The Department sent the Tribe an email and “a certified letter inquiring as to
tribal affiliation.” The certified letter was sent on October 3, 2022 “to The Blackfeet
Indian Reservation of Montana.” Neither the Department’s email nor letter to the
Blackfeet Tribe was part of the original record in this case. The October 3, 2022, letter
was added to the record after opening briefs were filed. In the letter, the Department
provided the names of Minor, Father, Aunt, Father’s father, and Father’s grandfather.
The Department also provided the birthdates for the foregoing people with the exception
of Father’s grandfather.
By November 14, 2022, the Department had not received a response from the
Blackfeet Tribe. On December 9, 2022, the Department social worker “telephoned the
Blackfeet Tribe in Montana to inquire about enrollment/eligibility . . . . The first phone
number led to an answering machine, whose mailbox was full. The second number rang
many times with no answer and no mailbox/voicemail option. The [Department] has
not received any mail from the Blackfeet tribe.” On December 13, 2022, the juvenile
court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to Minor.
3 Aunt claimed Blackfoot heritage, but the Department contacted the Blackfeet
Tribe. We note that “there is frequently confusion between the Blackfeet tribe, which is
federally recognized, and the related Blackfoot tribe which is found in Canada and thus
not entitled to notice of dependency proceedings. When Blackfoot heritage is claimed,
part of the [a]gency’s duty of inquiry is to clarify whether the parent is actually claiming
Blackfoot or Blackfeet heritage so that it can discharge its additional duty to notice the
relevant tribes.” (In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198.)
3
DISCUSSION
Father and Mother contend, “The silent record with respect to information that
should have been provided to the tribe . . . necessitates conditional reversal of the order
terminating parental rights.” After Father’s and Mother’s appellant’s opening briefs
were filed, the Department moved to augment the record with the previously omitted
October 3, 2022, letter that the Department sent to the Blackfeet Tribe inquiring about
Minor’s alleged Indian ancestry. This court granted the motion. Subsequently, Father
and Mother sent this court letters explaining that, upon reviewing the augmented record,
they would not be filing reply briefs. Given that the record is no longer silent on the
information the Department provided to the Blackfeet Tribe, we will affirm the order
terminating parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4