Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD228612.
BUTZ, J.
Appellant, the mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) Appellant claims that inquiry and notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) were insufficient. Concluding any error was harmless, we shall affirm.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As the facts underlying dependency jurisdiction are not relevant to the issues raised by appellant, we do not recount them in detail.
In October 2008, a dependency petition was filed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) concerning newborn P.H., based on physical injuries previously suffered by the minor’s half siblings while in appellant’s care. According to the petition, appellant was denied reunification services with the half siblings in 2007, and her parental rights to two other children were terminated in April 2008.
The detention report noted that, according to prior court reports, appellant claimed Indian heritage. Appellant subsequently reported an ancestral connection to the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (the Tribe). The juvenile court ordered notice in compliance with the ICWA.
The ICWA paralegal for the Department filed a declaration stating that she had attempted unsuccessfully to contact appellant and that the Tribe had previously found the minor’s half siblings ineligible for enrollment. Notice was sent to the Tribe with information concerning appellant, as well as the minor’s maternal grandparents and great-grandparents. The notice stated that the information contained therein was obtained from the half siblings’ case.
Prior to the jurisdictional hearing, appellant produced a 1995 letter from the Tribe stating she had been approved for enrollment. The Department’s ICWA paralegal sent a copy of the letter to the Tribe.
At a subsequent hearing, appellant reviewed the notice provided to the Tribe and informed the juvenile court that the information provided was correct.
At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court noted that the Tribe had received notice as well as the additional information concerning appellant’s enrollment more than two months earlier and that there had been no response from them. The court concluded: “[T]he silence of the [T]ribe is indicative that [the minor] is not an Indian child.”
The court sustained the allegations in the petition, denied reunification services, and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the minor.
At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found the minor likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellant claims the ICWA notice was deficient for a variety of reasons. The Department maintains appellant is collaterally estopped from raising these claims because they were decided in a prior appeal involving the minor’s half siblings. However, the current appeal concerns a different ICWA notice and a different child. Thus, an appellate determination regarding the ICWA notice in the prior dependency proceeding does not resolve whether the notice provided in the minor’s matter was adequate. Accordingly, appellant is not collaterally estopped from litigating ICWA notice issues pertaining to the minor.
Nonetheless, we conclude any error in the ICWA notice provided was harmless.
Congress passed the ICWA “to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian children from their families and placement of such children ‘in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture....’” (In re Levi U. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 191, 195, quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1902; Mississippi Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield (1989) 490 U.S. 30 [104 L.Ed.2d 29].)
Among the procedural safeguards included in the ICWA is a provision for notice, which states in part: “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).) The Indian status of a child need not be certain or conclusive to trigger the ICWA’s notice requirements. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471.)
ICWA notice must include “[a]ll names known, and current and former addresses of the Indian child’s biological mother, biological father, maternal and paternal grandparents and great[-]grandparents or Indian custodians, including maiden, married and former names or aliases; birthdates; places of birth and death; tribal enrollment numbers, and/or other identifying information.” (25 C.F.R. § 23.11(d)(3); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (a)(5)(C).) Furthermore, if the social worker “has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the social worker... is required to make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child, and to do so as soon as practicable, by interviewing the parents, Indian custodian, and extended family members to gather the information” required to be provided in the ICWA notice. (§ 224.3, subd. (c).)
Errors relating to ICWA notice are subject to harmless error review. (In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115, 121 [error in failing to inquire re: Indian heritage]; In re Alexis H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 11, 16.) Errors may be held harmless when, even with proper notice, a child would not have been found to be an Indian child. (In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1162.)
Appellant complains that the maternal grandmother’s address and enrollment number were not contained in the ICWA notice and the Department did not make adequate efforts to obtain this information. Appellant also contends the Department should have included the maternal grandmother’s married name and address in the ICWA notice. She argues it was essential to provide the Tribe with all known information about the minor’s Indian ancestors and that the failure to do so mandates reversal.
We agree that ICWA notice is meaningless if the information provided does not allow “the tribe [to] adequately search its records for the relevant person.” (In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 631.) In In re Louis S., reversal was required when the ICWA notices at issue contained incomplete and inadequate information about the minor’s Indian relatives, such that “the tribe could not conduct a meaningful search to determine [the minor’s] tribal heritage.” (Ibid.)
Here, while some information regarding the maternal grandmother that could have been obtained was omitted from the ICWA notice, the Tribe was provided with appellant’s name, address, and date and place of birth, as well as a copy of her enrollment card and a letter from the Tribe confirming her approval for enrollment. Presumably, prior to approving appellant for enrollment, the Tribe examined her lineage to determine her eligibility. Thus, although the ICWA notice in the minor’s matter did not contain all possible information about the maternal grandmother, it is reasonable to infer the Tribe was in possession of the information it needed concerning appellant’s Indian heritage to determine the minor’s eligibility for enrollment. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to believe that further inquiry or additional information concerning the maternal grandmother would have led to a different determination by the Tribe as to the minor’s eligibility for enrollment.
Accordingly, we deem the error harmless.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., HULL, J.