Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD225045
ROBIE, J.
Appellants Jenifer N. and Daniel N., parents of the minor, appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that respondent Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2006, the department filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the minor. The detention report noted the mother reported heritage with the Cherokee and Blackfeet tribes and indicated the father had heritage with the Cherokee, Blackfeet, and Navajo tribes. The juvenile court ordered the department to provide the necessary notice to the federally recognized Cherokee, Blackfeet, and Navajo tribes pursuant to ICWA.
On November 20, 2006, the department sent the first set of ICWA notices. The notices were sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and to the Cherokee, Blackfeet and Navajo tribes, as follows: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Blackfeet tribe in Montana, Navajo Nation in Arizona, Colorado River Tribal Counsel in Arizona, and Ramah Navajo Chapter of the Navajo Nation in Arizona. By December 26, 2006, the department had received and filed return receipts from all of the noticed parties. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians indicated the minor was not eligible for membership and the Blackfeet tribe requested further information. The Navajo Nation indicated they were unable to verify eligibility for enrollment for the minor.
The department noted that the Blackfeet tribe is a Canadian tribe and not federally recognized.
On February 13, 2007, the department sent an updated ICWA notice to the BIA and above-listed tribes and also to the Ramah Navajo School Board in Mew Mexico. By March 12, 2007, the department had received and filed return receipts from all of the noticed parties. Thereafter, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Blackfeet tribe in Montana, and Ramah Navajo School Board indicated the minor was not eligible for membership.
At the April 25, 2007, ICWA hearing, the juvenile court found that notice had been completed and that the minor was not an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA. Thereafter, the parents failed to reunify with the minor and, on October 17, 2007, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellants contend the record does not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of ICWA. We disagree.
The ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for, and permitting tribal participation in, dependency actions. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902, 1903(1), 1911(c), 1912.) If, after the petition is filed, the court “knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved,” notice of the pending proceeding and that the right to intervene must be sent to the tribe or to the BIA if the tribal affiliation is not known. (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).)
Appellants contend that notice to the Navajo Nation was inadequate because the Federal Register lists “Rita Wilson, M.S.W., Acting Director, Navajo Children and Family Services (ICWA)” as the designated agent and the department addressed the notice to “ICWA Representative,” at the same address. Since Rita Wilson did not sign the return receipt, they argue, there is insufficient evidence that the Navajo Nation was provided proper notice.
To the contrary, the record contains a signed return receipt for the ICWA notice sent to the Navajo Nation and the indication that the signer, Loretta Chia, was an authorized agent. Moreover, the department received and filed a response from the Navajo Nation, on letterhead containing the same department and address listed in the Federal Register for notice and signed by “Regina Wilson, MSW, Program Director.” (71 Fed.Reg. 43800 (Aug. 2, 2006).) Thus, the record reflects that the Navajo Nation received actual notice of these proceedings. (Cf. Nicole K. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 779, 784; see also In re L. B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1426.)
Appellants also argue that the second notice sent to the Navajo Nation was sent to “P.O. Box 1926,” rather than “P.O. Box 1930,” as listed in the Federal Register. (71 Fed.Reg. 43800 (Aug. 2, 2006).) They claim this discrepancy supports the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of notice. We disagree.
Failure to mail ICWA notice to a correct address constitutes harmless error where “the record contains . . . conclusive evidence that the [tribe] received actual notice of the proceedings.” (Nicole K. v. Superior Court, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at pp. 783-784.)
Here, the Navajo Nation clearly received the first notice, as it responded with a letter stating that the minor was not eligible for enrollment. Although the second notice was sent to the wrong post office box, the return receipt was signed by the same agent -- Loretta Chia. The inference from the existence of return receipts signed by the same agent and the earlier denial letter from the tribe, is that the tribe did receive both notices. Any error in mailing the second notice to the wrong post office box was harmless.
Appellants also complain that the Navajo Nation’s response predated the second ICWA notice. However, a failure to respond to notice can be deemed a denial of membership 60 days after the notice was sent. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.482(d)(1).) Since, as we have explained, the notice was sufficient, the failure to respond is properly deemed a denial.
Finally, appellants contend the ICWA notice was insufficient because the department failed to mail notice to two of the designated agents for service in the Navajo Region. The department responds that the two designated agents who appellants contend should have been served are regional BIA directors, not tribal representatives. Since the BIA was served, the department contends there was no failure of notice. We find no grounds for reversal because appellants have failed to establish which Navajo tribe, if any, did not receive notice.
Having received information suggesting the minor may have Navajo heritage, the department was obliged to notify any and all federally recognized Navajo tribes of the proceedings, in order that those tribes could make a proper determination. The Federal Register lists Indian tribal entities to which notice must be provided in appropriate cases under federal law. That list contains the Navajo Nation. (70 Fed.Reg. 71196 (Nov. 25, 2005).)
The current names and addresses of the designated agents for service of notice are also contained in the Federal Register. There are three addresses listed in the Navajo Region: (1) “Elouise Chicharello, Regional Director, Navajo Regional Office, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, NM 87305”; (2) “Vivian Yazza, M.S.W., L.I.S.W., Regional Social Worker, P.O. Box 1060, . . . Gallup, New Mexico, 87305-1060”; and (3) “Rita Wilson, M.S.W., Acting Director, Navajo Children and Family Services (ICWA), P.O. Box 1930, Window Rock, Arizona 86515.” (71 Fed. Reg. 43800 (Aug. 2, 2006).)
The department sent notice to the “ICWA Representative,” Navajo Nation, post office box 1930, Window Rock, Arizona 86515. This appears from the Federal Register to be an authorized address for ICWA notice for the Navajo Nation and, as previously discussed, such notice was sufficient for notice to the Navajo Nation. Thus, the Navajo Nation, a federally recognized tribe, received notice of the proceedings pursuant to the ICWA.
Although appellants complain that the other two individuals listed in the Federal Register in the Navajo region were not provided notice of the proceedings, appellants fail to identify a federally recognized Navajo tribe that was not provided notice. Both the Navajo Nation (the federally recognized Navajo tribe contained in the Federal Register) and the BIA were provided notice. Thus, appellants have not established error.
The department also sent notice to Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Ramah Navajo Chapter care of Navajo Nation, and Colorado River Indian tribes. We offer no opinion as to whether these notices were required.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, Acting P.J., RAYE, J.