Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK103025 Valerie Skeba, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Father.
Marissa Coffee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mother.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BOREN, P.J.
This appeal challenges the termination of parental rights of Lisa S. M. (mother) and Jorge M. (father) as to their child, Marianna T., and the termination of mother’s parental rights as to a child by a different father, J.T. Mother and father’s sole contention is the lack of compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; hereinafter, ICWA.) The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concedes error, and we agree.
In October of 2005, the detention report revealed that mother was attempting to get housing assistance through the LA Torres-Martinez Tribal TANF Program, thus indicating that the ICWA might apply. In fact, the Area Director of the LA Torres-Martinez Tribal TANF worked with DCFS and provided mother with some family services.
A Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla tribe located in Thermal, California, is noted in the 2006 Federal Register. (No. 148, 71 Fed.Reg. 43804 (Aug. 2, 2006).)
The detention report also indicated that mother had informed the social worker that she had Native American heritage and provided a copy of a letter dated October 4, 1995, from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The letter certified that “Isidora [T.]” (with the name “Nana [D.]” handwritten next to it) was “enrolled as a California Indian under the Act of September 23, 1968 . . . and is named on the California Judgment Fund Roll of California Indians.” The letter included an enrollment number and a birth date.
At the hearing in January of 2006, counsel for Joel T., the father of J.T., informed the juvenile court that he believed mother had Native American Indian heritage through the “Tanaina tribe,” through the maternal grandfather, Robert S., who had passed away in 2000. According to counsel for Joel T., there was a Tanaina tribal office in Lancaster where “there might be some papers filed.” The juvenile court ordered DCFS to notify the BIA and the “Tatiana” Indian tribe and to determine if this case falls within the ICWA.
Joel T. is also the father of two other children who are not subjects of this appeal. Joel T. is not a party to this appeal.
In February of 2006, DCFS advised the court it was not able to locate a “Tatiana tribe” in the Federal Register; DCFS also sent notice to the BIA, but acknowledged insufficient time to receive a response. The notice sent by DCFS included various errors and omissions. For example, the notice excluded the child Marianna’s name and information; omitted any reference to the maternal side of the family and any reference to the mother’s letter from the BIA that had included the ancestor’s name, birth date, and enrollment number; omitted reference to the LA Torres-Martinez tribe; stated that the mother and the maternal side of the family were not affiliated with any tribe; misidentified Joel T. as having a Tatiana tribal heritage; and was filed in an untimely manner.
Ultimately, the BIA office in Riverside sent to DCFS in Lancaster a letter indicating that the ICWA was inapplicable because the stated tribe was not federally recognized. On April 12, 2006, the juvenile court found that this was not an ICWA case, based on the BIA letter indicating the “identified tribe” was not federally recognized.
Finally, at the first court appearances by father (on April, 12, 2006) and by mother (on July 30, 2007), neither the juvenile court nor DCFS made any inquiry as to ICWA status. Such inquiries, however, were under the circumstances required by statute. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.3.) On July 30, 2007, the juvenile court terminated parental rights as to the two children involved in the present appeal.
As DCFS correctly concedes, the facts detailed above mandate a reversal of the order under review, with a remand limited to a proper consideration of the ICWA issue. (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 706; In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 740.)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating the parental rights at issue is reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the sole purpose of (1) conducting an ICWA inquiry of the parents and any other relevant persons, and (2) sending proper and meaningful notice to the area director of the BIA, the Secretary of the Department of Interior, the LA Torres-Martinez tribe, and any other appropriate tribe. If any tribe indicates that the two children are Indian children, then the juvenile court shall proceed in conformity with the ICWA. If no tribe indicates that the two children are Indian children, then the juvenile court is directed to reinstate the order terminating parental rights.
We concur: DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.