Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. JD222172 & JD222173
SCOTLAND , P. J.
N.B., mother of the minors, appeals from the denial of her petition to modify prior dispositional orders of the juvenile court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, 395; further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.) Appellant contends reversal is required because there was inadequate compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We disagree and shall affirm.
FACTS
The minors were detained in April 2005 due to parental neglect. The minors’ father claimed Cherokee and Sioux heritage through both paternal great-grandmothers. At the detention hearing, appellant stated she may have Indian heritage through the maternal grandfather, Alexander B., but she did not know what tribe might be involved. The court ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to investigate and provide notice to the tribes. The minors were returned to appellant’s custody under supervision but were later redetained.
A DHHS paralegal sent notice to the Cherokee and Sioux tribes regarding the father’s claims of Indian heritage. Notice was also sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regarding appellant’s less precise Indian heritage claim, even though the paralegal was told the maternal aunt knew of no Indian heritage in the maternal line. The notice misspelled appellant’s first name and the maternal grandmother’s first name but correctly spelled the name of the maternal grandfather, through whom heritage was claimed. In a later interview, appellant stated that she had no Indian heritage.
Over time, responses were received from most of the noticed tribes, reporting the minors were not eligible for tribal membership. There was no response from the BIA.
In July 2005, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and ordered reunification services. Appellant failed to reunify, and the court terminated services in June 2006. The minors were eventually placed in a permanent plan of long-term foster care with a goal of adoption.
In October 2008, appellant filed a petition for modification, seeking return of the minors to her custody or additional services because she had participated in services through Alta Regional Center and believed she could parent the minors with the support of the Regional Center. The juvenile court denied the petition for modification.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that, because the ICWA notice misspelled her first name and the maternal grandmother’s first name, the order denying her modification motion must be reversed. The contention fails.
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 juvenile court “knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved,” notice of the pending proceeding and the right to intervene must be sent to the tribe or the BIA if the tribal affiliation is not known. (25 U.S.C. § 1912; § 224.2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).)
State statutes, federal regulations, and federal guidelines on Indian child custody proceedings all specify the contents of the notice to be sent to the tribe in order to inform it of the proceedings and assist it in determining if the child is a member or eligible for membership. (§ 224.2; 25 C.F.R. § 23.11(a), (d), (e) (2009); 44 Fed. Reg. 67588, B.5 (Nov. 26, 2979).) To assist a tribe in making its determination of whether the child is eligible for membership and whether to intervene, the agency should provide the following information if it is known: the name and date of birth of the child; the tribe in which membership is claimed; the names, birthdates, current addresses, and tribal enrollment numbers of the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of the child, and the places of their birth and death if applicable. (§ 224.2; 25 C.F.R. § 23.11(a), (d), (e) (2009); 44 Fed. Reg. 67588, B.5 (Nov. 26, 1979); In re D.T. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1454-1455.)
A deficiency in notice may be harmless when it can be said that, if proper notice had been given, the child would not have been found to be an Indian child and ICWA would not have applied. (In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1162; In re E.W. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.)
Here, appellant claimed Indian heritage in an unknown tribe through a maternal grandfather, Alexander B. As to appellant’s heritage, notice to the BIA was all that was required. The notice sent to the BIA contained erroneous spellings of the first names of appellant and the maternal grandmother, but it correctly identified Alexander B. as the ancestor through whom heritage was claimed.
Thus, appellant’s reliance on evidence in responses from the various tribes claimed by the father is misplaced.
Appellant contends the facts in this case are similar to those in In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, where the appellate court reversed and remanded due to misspelled and incomplete names in the notice. We disagree. The incomplete name and missing birth date in the notice in that case were of the ancestor through whom heritage was claimed. (Id. at p. 631.) Hence, the tribe or the BIA could not be expected to be able to conduct a meaningful search and determine the minor’s tribal connection.
In this case, the information about the claimed ancestor was accurate and complete as far as the information was known. Nothing in the record suggests that errors in the names of this ancestor’s descendants impaired BIA’s ability to determine whether the ancestor was connected to any federally recognized tribe.
Moreover, appellant and the maternal aunt ultimately disavowed any Indian heritage. (See In re N.E. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 766, 769-771.)
Accordingly, the spelling errors in the names of appellant and the maternal grandmother in the ICWA notice were harmless.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the modification petition is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , J. ROBIE , J.