Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, James E. Herman, Judge, Super. Ct. No. J1174921
Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
J.J. appeals orders of the juvenile court denying a modification petition, declaring that her daughter M. is adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 388, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2006, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services ("CWS") filed a dependency petition on behalf of eight-year-old M. CWS alleged that M.'s mother, J.J., recently had been released from jail and was participating in residential treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. CWS also alleged that M.'s father had sexually abused her and that her sibling had been a dependent child. (§ 300, subds. (b), (d), (g), (j).)
The juvenile court ordered M. detained and placed in foster care. On June 1, 2006, the court sustained the allegations of an amended dependency petition and continued M. in foster care. CWS noted in the jurisdiction report that J.J. informed the social worker that her birth mother had stated that she had one-quarter Alaskan Indian heritage. J.J. was adopted and her birth mother now was deceased.
CWS recommended that the juvenile court not order family reunification services to J.J. or M.'s father because M.'s sibling had been a dependent child with whom they were unable to reunify, despite family reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6), (10) & (13).) On August 7, 2006, the court denied family reunification services to M.'s parents, and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) ("ICWA")
On January 3, 2007, CWS sent Judicial Council Form JV-135 to the Ketchikan Indian Corporation and the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian tribes. The form stated the names and addresses of M.'s parents, the maiden and married name of her maternal grandmother, and the name of her maternal great-grandmother. CWS filed the postal return receipts for the mailings with the juvenile court.
On August 14, 2007, a CWS social worker spoke with a representative of the Tlingit and Haida tribes who stated that she had researched M.'s status and concluded that she was neither an enrolled member nor eligible for enrolled membership in the tribes. On July 31, 2007, the CWS social worker spoke with a representative of the Ketchikan tribe, who stated that she had researched M.'s status based upon the stated information concerning M.'s mother, grandmother, and aunt and uncle. The Ketchikan representative concluded that neither M. nor any of her stated relatives are enrolled members or eligible for membership in the Ketchikan tribe. She recommended that CWS contact an outlying Tlingit Indian tribe regarding M.'s relatives. On September 19, 2007, the Ketchikan representative wrote CWS and stated that M. "is not an enrolled member, nor are her parents." The representative suggested that CWS contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs "to further [its] research."
On August 3, 2007, CWS telephoned Henrietta Cato, a representative of the outlying Tlingit Indian tribe. Cato informed CWS that she had researched the matter and that M. was neither an enrolled member nor eligible for membership in any Tlingit or Haida Indian tribe.
On October 11, 2007, the juvenile court held a combined modification and permanent plan hearing. J.J. testified to her progress in maintaining sobriety and in obtaining employment and housing. The court received evidence of CWS reports and testimony from witnesses. After hearing argument from the parties, the court denied the modification petition. It also concluded that M. is not an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. It then determined by clear and convincing evidence that M. is likely to be adopted, and it terminated parental rights.
Post-Order ICWA Notices and Proceedings
On June 11, 2008, CWS requested an ICWA review hearing in light of J.J.'s appellate claims regarding compliance with ICWA notice requirements. CWS sent notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as suggested by the Ketchikan Indian tribe representative, and also to M.'s parents. CWS filed the postal return receipt with the juvenile court. On July 22, 2008, the Bureau of Indian Affairs informed CWS that it was unable to provide the name of any tribe with which M. might be affiliated. On July 31, 2008, the court affirmed its prior finding that the ICWA does not apply to M.
J.J. appeals and contends that the juvenile court did not ensure compliance with ICWA notice requirements.
M.'s father is not a party to this appeal.
DISCUSSION
J.J. argues that CWS did not conduct a thorough investigation of her Indian heritage to provide adequate information to the Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481, formerly rule 5.664(d).) She asserts that CWS did not interview family members who "reasonably can be expected to have information regarding the child's membership status or eligibility." (§ 224.3, subd. (c); In re S.M. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [social services agency must inquire regarding dependent child's family history].) J.J. contends that the juvenile court's ICWA findings therefore rest upon insufficient evidence, constituting reversible error.
The juvenile court properly determined that CWS satisfied the notice requirements of the ICWA and that M. is not an Indian child pursuant to the Act. (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 [summarizing notice requirements, contents of form, and necessity of filing tribal responses].) In post-termination order proceedings, CWS provided proper notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and filed the postal return receipt with the juvenile court. Moreover, CWS had no duty to notice the Bureau of Indian Affairs because it had information regarding specific Indian tribes. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 209.) Earlier, CWS had spoken with a representative of the outlying Tlingit Indian tribe who stated that she had researched the matter and that M. was neither an enrolled member nor eligible for membership in the tribe. The Tlingit and Ketchikan Indian tribes provided written responses, filed with the court, regarding the negative findings.
CWS also fulfilled its duties of inquiry. At the detention hearing, J.J. was absent and M.'s father stated that he did not "have a clue" regarding J.J.'s Indian heritage. The dependency file of M.'s sibling did not contain information regarding any Indian heritage. J.J. informed CWS of her mother's adopted name, but did not know her birth name or birth date. J.J. also stated that her biological brother and sister lived in Oregon, and she believed that her sister received Indian tribal benefits, but J.J. had no contact information. CWS satisfied its duties of inquiry under the ICWA and California law.
The orders are affirmed.
We concur; YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.