Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD223733
HULL, J.Appellant M.G., the mother of the minor S.G., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further unspecified sections references are to this code.) On appeal, she contends the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) We affirm the judgment.
Facts and Proceedings
S.G. was detained three days after her birth in January 2006. Appellant has a long-term drug abuse problem, and used methamphetamine and barbiturates during the pregnancy.
On January 25, 2006, DHHS filed a dependency petition, alleging jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The court ordered the minor detained on the next day.
Appellant admitted having a problem with drugs and testing positive for methamphetamine while she was pregnant. She has an extensive child welfare history involving her four other children, three daughters and a son.
Appellant claimed Indian heritage, naming the Apache and Yaqui tribes, but is not registered. DHHS sent notice to the Apache and Yaqui tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on March 9, 2006. The following tribes responded that the minor was not enrolled or eligible for enrollment: Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai/Apache Nation, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and Mescalero Apache Tribe. On April 18, 2006, the juvenile court determined the minor was not an Indian child and no further ICWA notice was necessary.
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing appellant submitted on the petition and reports, and the court sustained the petition, placing the minor and his siblings with appellant.
As of November 2006, appellant had completed the outpatient program session of her counseling program and phase I of Drug Court. She continued to test positive for methamphetamine, had not started her 12-step program, and her counselor was concerned appellant was not using her services.
On April 2, 2007, DHHS filed a supplemental petition (§ 387), alleging appellant could not keep the minor or his siblings safe. Both of the minor’s teenage sisters had attempted suicide, while the minor had to be hospitalized for dehydration. The minor and the teenage sisters were detained on April 4.
In a May 2007 telephone interview appellant admitted recently to using methamphetamine, but had voluntarily entered Mercy Woman’s Center for drug treatment. The social worker recommended no reunification services.
As of July 2007, appellant had obtained a sponsor and was attending counseling. She was testing negative for drugs and participating in treatment at Mercy Women’s Center.
In October 2007, appellant missed a week of services and tested positive for methamphetamine. She admitted being overwhelmed, and needing in-patient treatment, but no beds were available at the time.
An amended section 387 petition was filed on November 26, 2007, alleging appellant’s continued substance abuse problem, and positive tests for methamphetamine and alcohol. The court sustained the petition on the same day and denied services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13).
Appellant filed a section 388 petition on March 25, 2008, requesting additional reunification services or placement of the minor with a maternal cousin. She attached documents indicating she had entered the Mi Casa Recovery Home in January 2008 and was scheduled to graduate on April 6. The counselor reported appellant’s “extreme willingness to get herself together” and that she had obtained a sponsor, while maintaining a positive attitude.
The social worker reported appellant had been discharged from the program on February 14, 2008, completing only 30 of the 90 days of treatment. Another person purporting to be appellant unsuccessfully tried to take a drug test for her.
On April 9, 2008, the court denied the section 388 petition and terminated parental rights.
Discussion
The 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.) The juvenile court and DHHS have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child who is subject to the proceedings is, or may be, an Indian child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481.) If, after the petition is filed, the 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; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(b).)
Appellant contends DHHS did not comply with the notice provisions of the ICWA because the notice sent to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma was improperly addressed and that one Apache tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Tribe of Arizona, was not notified at all. We reject both contentions.
I
Notice to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe
The ICWA notice to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe was addressed to: RT 1, Box 121, Apache, Oklahoma 73006. The address listed in the Federal Register for the Fort Sill Apache Tribe is: Route 2, Box 121, Apache, Oklahoma 73006. (70 Fed.Reg. 28953 (May 19, 2005).) Appellant contends the difference in addresses renders the notice improper. We find the tribe was notified.
DHHS first argues it had no duty to notify the tribes because there was insufficient information to trigger the ICWA’s notice provisions. This point is not well taken. The Indian status of a child need not be certain to trigger ICWA’s notice requirements. (In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471.) The mother’s claim of Apache and Yaqui heritage was more than sufficient to trigger the duty of notice.
DHHS next argues the tribe was properly notified as the address was obtained from a list of Indian tribes maintained by the California Department of Social Services (DSS).
Preliminarily, we note that, as requested by DHHS, we take judicial notice of the relevant pages of the Federal Register, and the list provided by DSS as of May 2006. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459, subd. (a).) On our own motion, we also take judicial notice of the DSS list on its website ( [as of Mar. 30, 2009]).
The DHHS argument is based on In re N.M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 253, 268 (N.M.), which held the child welfare agency did not err in using the names and addresses provided by the state publication in notifying the relevant tribes. The Court of Appeal reasoned: “Requiring literal compliance solely by reference to the names and addresses listed in the last published Federal Register would exalt form over substance. The Department should not be hamstrung by limitation to only the names and addresses provided for the tribes in the Federal Register if a more current or accurate listing is available and is reasonably calculated to provide prompt and actual notice to the tribes.” (Ibid.)
The Department of the Interior determines which tribes must be notified under the ICWA. State law requires notice to “all tribes of which the child may be a member or eligible for membership.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a)(3).) An “Indian tribe” is defined as “any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services provided to Indians by the Secretary [of the Interior] because of their status as Indians . . . .” (25 U.S.C. § 1903(8); see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224.1.)
Pursuant to 25 Code of Federal Regulations part 23.12, the Department of the Interior publishes the list of tribal agents for service of ICWA notice and their addresses. The federal regulations implementing the ICWA “are binding in all federal and state courts by virtue of the supremacy clause [citation] . . . .” (In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1157.)
While blind adherence to an address listed in the Federal Register when other, more accurate information is available elsewhere “would exalt form over substance” (N.M., supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 268), we must still respect the Department of the Interior’s primary authority in administering the ICWA. ICWA notice may depart from the addresses listed in the Federal Register, but only when the alternative address is clearly more accurate.
There is no evidence in the record supporting DHHS’s implicit contention that the DSS list it relied on is more accurate than the Federal Register. DHHS used the May 2006 version of the DSS’s list to notify the Fort Sill Apache Tribe. However, the DSS list was updated in September 2008, and now shows the same address for the Fort Sill Apache Tribe as listed in the Federal Register: Route 2, Box 121, Apache, Oklahoma 73006 ( (as of Mar. 30, 2009).) The apparent inaccuracy in the DSS list at the time notice was sent distinguishes N.M.
However, we conclude the Fort Sill Tribe was in fact notified so reversal is not warranted. Notice was sent to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe at the same town, state, and zip code as in the Federal Register for the tribe. (70 Fed.Reg. 28953 (May 19, 2005).) The only difference was the notice was sent to Route 1 rather than Route 2 at this address. DHHS received a signed return receipt for the notice sent to the Fort Sill Apache Tribe at the Route 1 address. The signed return receipt, in which the Fort Sill Apache Tribe is the addressee, shows the tribe received the notification in spite of the minor variation in the address. (In re K.W. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1360.)
II
McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribe
Appellant also contends notice was inadequate because DHHS did not notify the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribe of Arizona, whom she claims is an Apache tribe. She is mistaken.
The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, which is located in Arizona, is not identified as an Apache Tribe in the Federal Register’s list of federally recognized tribes. (70 Fed.Reg. 71195 (Nov. 25, 2005).) Appellant’s only sources in support of her contention are Wikipedia articles on federally recognized tribes and the Apache. We are not persuaded.
Articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. (Badasa v. Mukasey (8th Cir. 2008) 540 F.3d 909, 910.) Unsurprisingly, any article at any time may contain factual errors, and can become very unbalanced. (Ibid.) We conclude Wikipedia is not a sufficiently reliable source upon which a court can determine whether a tribe should be notified pursuant to the ICWA. (See ibid. [Wikipedia article is not a sufficiently reliable source on which to rest the determination that an alien alleging a risk of future persecution is not entitled to asylum].)
The BIA’s 2003 list of federally recognized tribes identifies the “Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona (formerly the Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Community of the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation).” (68 Fed.Reg. 68181 (Dec. 5, 2003).) The list of agents for ICWA notice identifies the tribe as the “Fort McDowell Yavapai Tribe[.]” (71 Fed.Reg. 43806 (Aug. 2, 2006).) While the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Tribe may have been Apache at one point, it was not at the time of the dependency proceedings, notwithstanding the assertions of the anonymous authors of the Wikipedia articles cited by appellant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, Acting P. J., BUTZ, J.