Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County No. JJP1888, Juan Ulloa, Judge.
HUFFMAN, J.
Ron S. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) over his two children. He contends the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and the juvenile court failed to secure that compliance. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
In January 2008 when the children were two and three years old, the Department filed dependency petitions based on the following facts. The children's mother was verbally aggressive with the children. She was arrested for theft while caring for one of the children. The children and the family home were filthy and there was minimal food. The children and Ron tested positive for methamphetamine. Both parents were drug users.
The children were detained out-of-home. In February 2008 the court made true findings on the petitions. In March 2008 the court ordered the children placed in foster care. The section 366.26 hearing took place in March 2009.
DISCUSSION
The Department has "an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a [dependent child]... is or may be an Indian child...." (§ 224.3, subd. (a).) "If... circumstances indicate a child may be an Indian child, the social worker must further inquire regarding the child's possible Indian status. Further inquiry includes interviewing the parents, Indian custodian, extended family members or any other person who can reasonably be expected to have information concerning the child's membership status or eligibility. (§ 224.3, subd. (c).) If the inquiry leads the social worker or the court to know or have reason to know an Indian child is involved, the social worker must provide notice. (§§ 224.3, subd. (d), 224.2, subd. (a)(5)(A)-(G).)" (In re Shane G. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1539.) "[A]n ICWA notice must include, if known, (1) the name, birthplace, and birth date of the Indian child; (2) the name of the tribe in which the Indian child is enrolled or may be eligible for enrollment; (3) names and addresses of the child's parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and other identifying information; and (4) a copy of the dependency petition. [Citations.] '[T]o establish tribal identity, it is necessary to provide as much information as is known on the Indian child's direct lineal ancestors.' [Citation.]" (In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 175.)
The detention report here stated ICWA did not apply. At the January 14 detention hearing the court found ICWA did not apply and directed the parents to complete ICWA forms. That day, after the hearing, Ron completed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form. On the form he stated he had Cherokee ancestry and he and the children might be members of a tribe or eligible for membership. The children's mother denied any Indian ancestry.
On February 19, 2008, the Department sent ICWA notices to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and both parents. By March 10 the Department had received a letter from the Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma, stating that based on the information provided and an examination of tribal records, the children were not Indian children.
Ron contends the ICWA notices were incomplete because they contained no information about paternal grandmother Elaine S. except her name. He argues the Department was required to interview him, the children's mother, and Elaine to ascertain Elaine's maiden, married and former names or aliases; birth date; place of birth; current and former addresses; and other identifying data. A Department social worker met with Elaine on December 19, 2007, before the petitions were filed and before Ron disclosed his Cherokee ancestry. Ron argues the Department should have visited her again, or at least telephoned her.
Ron also states the Department should have asked about Elaine's place of death.
Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears the social worker's meeting with Elaine took place at Ron's home, not Elaine's. There is no evidence the Department knew how to contact Elaine after that meeting. Although the Department sent the ICWA notices to Ron, there is no evidence he made any effort to supply any of the missing information about Elaine. He never said whether his claimed Indian heritage was through her or through the paternal grandfather. (In re Cheyanne F. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 571, 576-577.)
Ron and the children's mother had little contact with the Department. They did not answer telephone calls or return telephone messages. They did not provide sufficient information about relatives for placement consideration. They attended only six visits over the 14-month course of this case and attended fewer than half the hearings. Because Ron's arguments are based on his own claim of Indian heritage, and the children's mother denied she had any such heritage, it is unclear how interviewing her would have been productive.
Under the circumstances here, the Department substantially complied with its duty to inquire into the children's possible Indian status. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that further information about Elaine would have resulted in any additional or different response from the tribes of the BIA. We therefore reject Ron's contentions.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McINTYRE, J.