Opinion
B324719
06-29-2023
In re ERNEST R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. T. R., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP04997A, Kristen Byrdsong, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HOFFSTADT, J.
In this appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights over her infant child, the mother argues that the order is invalid because (1) the court erred in denying her previously filed petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to award her reunification services, and (2) the court erred in finding compliance with our state's broader version of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 224.2, subd. (b)).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
The issues mother raises in this appeal are identical to those we resolved in her prior appeal of the trial court's order denying her section 388 petition. (In re Ernest R., No. B320482.) In that appeal, we concluded that (1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's section 388 petition, and (2) any ICWA error was harmless.
The facts and procedural background in the two appeals are identical. So are the arguments, with one notable exception:
Mother argues that the juvenile court's termination order must be reversed because the court did not reaffirm its prior findings that ICWA did not apply. This is of no consequence, because the prior finding is implied in the court's order terminating jurisdiction, which would otherwise be unlawful absent a finding that ICWA is inapplicable. (In re Michael V. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 225, 234; In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 506 [trial court's finding that ICWA does not apply "may be either express or implied"]; In re G.A. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355, 361 [same], review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S276056.) What is more, the juvenile court reaffirmed the finding that ICWA did not apply in its minute order dated April 24, 2023. We will not repeat the remaining analysis and will instead incorporate the substance of that opinion into this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights over Ernest R.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order is affirmed.
We concur: LUI, P. J., CHAVEZ, J.