From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Trent V.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Mar 11, 2008
No. B201606 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2008)

Opinion


In re TRENT V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TYRONE F. AND MABEL V., Defendants and Appellants. B201606 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fifth Division March 11, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court No. CK43621 of Los Angeles County, Robin Miller Sloan, Judge.

Judy Weissberg-Ortiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Tyrone F.

Andrea Renee St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mabel V.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

TURNER, P. J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Tyrone F. (the father) and Mabel V. (the mother) appeal from an August 21, 2007 reinstated parental rights termination order (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) following the second of two limited remands for compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) The juvenile court found there was adequate notice and the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply. The parents contend there was, once again, noncompliance with the notice requirements. We conclude substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the parental rights termination order.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code except where otherwise noted.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The First Indian Child Welfare Act Remand

Dependency proceedings as to the child, Trent V., commenced in August 2004. On June 29, 2005, the juvenile court entered a parental rights termination order as to the mother and the father. The mother appealed. On January 19, 2006, we reversed the parental rights termination order and remanded for the sole purpose of compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. (In re Trent V. (Jan. 19, 2006, B184197) [nonpub. opn.].) We ordered, “If[,] after proper notice is given, the child is determined not to be a Native American, the juvenile court is directed to reinstate the parental rights termination order.” (Id., [typed opn. at p. 8].)

B. The Second Indian Child Welfare Act Remand

On remand, by order dated August 18, 2006, the juvenile court ruled the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply. The juvenile court reinstated the June 29, 2005 parental rights termination order. The mother appealed. We reversed the order and, for the second time, remanded this matter for the sole purpose of compliance with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. (In re Trent V. (Feb. 20, 2007, B193155) [nonpub. opn.].)

C. The Parents’ Request For A Third Remand

After the second remand, a status review report filed on May 22, 2007 detailed the Department of Children and Family Services’ (the department) efforts to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act: “The Adoptions Birth Parent Social Worker . . . sent [Indian Child Welfare Act] notices for the hearing . . . before learning that the matter [had been] . . . continued for a . . . 366.26 hearing and receipt of the [Indian Child Welfare Act] notices. [¶] Up to now, the children’s mother . . . has stated that there was no Native American heritage in her family. On [May 15, 2007], she stated that there is such heritage in her family. A telephone call to her mother, Esther P., that date revealed that there is no [N]ative American heritage in the family. [Esther’s] mother was Dutch and her father was Norwegian. [The mother] states that she has never met her father.” The father told a social worker, Sarah Leon, he had Cherokee or Blackfeet heritage through his paternal relatives. The father was able to provide only the paternal grandfather’s name and the year of his death. The father had no knowledge of any other relatives. Ms. Leon telephoned a paternal aunt. The paternal aunt refused to provide any information about her family’s ancestry and terminated the telephone conversation.

Notice of Involuntary Child Custody Proceedings for an Indian Child (notice) was given on June 19, 2007, to four tribes: the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma; the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; and the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. The notice reflected that: the paternal grandfather was deceased; the paternal grandfather had Cherokee and Blackfeet heritage, but the family had no knowledge of enrollment in any tribe; the paternal grandmother’s whereabouts were unknown; the maternal grandfather’s whereabouts were unknown; the mother had never met her father; the maternal grandmother had not seen the maternal grandfather since prior to the mother’s birth and did not know where he was; and the maternal and paternal great-grandparents, who had possible Cherokee or Blackfeet heritage, were deceased, with the possible exception of the paternal great-grandfather, whose whereabouts were unknown. Signed return receipts were received from each of the four tribes. Each of the noticed tribes subsequently advised in writing that the child was not a member of, nor eligible for membership in, the tribe.

On August 21, 2007, the juvenile court found adequate notice was given and the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply. The court reinstated the parental rights termination order. This appeal followed.

III. DISCUSSION

We review for substantial evidence the trial court’s finding the notice was adequate. (In re J.T. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 986, 991; In re E.H. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1333.) We conclude substantial evidence supported that finding.

The parents contend the notice was deficient in several respects, resulting in prejudicial error; specifically: notice was not given for each hearing that occurred after the Indian Child Welfare Act notice requirement was triggered; the notice given for the May 22, 2007 hearing did not mention the Blackfeet tribe; and the certified mail receipts for the May 22, 2007, and August 21, 2007 hearings did not include any postage fee or postage mark information. We find any error was harmless. There is conclusive evidence in the record that the tribes received actual notice of the juvenile court proceeding, together with identifying information as to the child’s relatives; moreover, each of the tribes responded with a determination the child was not an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act. There was no prejudicial error. (In re J.T., supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 994; In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 211; Nicole K. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 779, 783.)

The parents assert the notices to the four tribes were not addressed to the tribal chairpersons as required by section 224.2, subdivision (a)(2), and there was no showing in the record that the notices were addressed to the tribes’ designated agent for service of notice. Section 224.2, subdivision (a)(2) states, “Notice to the tribe shall be to the tribal chairperson, unless the tribe has designated another agent for service.” We find notice to the tribes was properly addressed in each case to the designated agent for service of notice as listed in the federal register. (Indian Child Welfare Act; Receipt of Designated Tribal Agents for Service of Notice, 71 Fed. Reg. 43788, 43797, 43798, 43804 (Aug. 2, 2006).)

The parents also challenge the sufficiency of the Indian Child Welfare Act notice provided to the father. The parents’ notice contention, as it relates to the father, is as follows. Section 224.2, subdivision (a) requires that Indian Child Welfare Act notices that are sent to the tribes or government agencies must also be served on the parents. Even though he was present at the two hearings after the second remand where the Indian Child Welfare Act issues were litigated, the parents contend for the first time on appeal the notices are defective as to the father so as to require reversal. The parents argue: the father’s purported signature on the return receipt for the May 22, 2007 hearing “was not decipherable”; the father’s signature on the return receipt did not resemble his signature as it appeared on his notice of appeal, raising the question of whether he executed the document; and there was no return receipt from the father for notice of the August 21, 2007 hearing. It bears emphasis, these challenges are not to the notices provided to the tribe. Rather, the parents are attacking the sufficiency of the documentation concerning the notices provided to the father.

Section 224.2, subdivision (a) states in part: “(a) If the court, a social worker, or probation officer knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, any notice sent in an Indian child custody proceeding under this code shall be sent to the minor’s parents or legal guardian, Indian custodian, if any, and the minor’s tribe and comply with all of the following requirements: [¶] (1) Notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested. Additional notice by first-class mail is recommended, but not required. [¶] (2) Notice to the tribe shall be to the tribal chairperson, unless the tribe has designated another agent for service. [¶] (3) Notice shall be sent to all tribes of which the child may be a member or eligible for membership, until the court makes a determination as to which tribe is the child’s tribe in accordance with subdivision (d) of Section 224.1, after which notice need only be sent to the tribe determined to be the Indian child’s tribe. [¶] (4) Notice, to the extent required by federal law, shall be sent to the Secretary of the Interior’s designated agent, the Sacramento Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the identity or location of the parents, Indian custodians, or the minor’s tribe is known, a copy of the notice shall also be sent directly to the Secretary of the Interior, unless the Secretary of the Interior has waived the notice in writing and the person responsible for giving notice under this section has filed proof of the waiver with the court.”

The father was present at the May 22 and August 21, 2007 hearings and was represented by counsel. He did not raise any lack of notice objection. Any objection he might have raised has been forfeited. (In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754; Marlene M. v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1149; In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152; In re Jesse C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1491.)

Finally, the parents argue—in conclusory fashion—that the notices served on the tribes “did not include sufficient, accurate information” to allow the tribes to make informed decisions. Pursuant to section 224.2, subdivision (a)(5), as amended effective January 1, 2007 (Stats. 2006, ch. 838, § 31), the Indian Child Welfare Act notice must include specified identifying information if known. (See also 25 C.F.R. § 23.11(a) & (d) (2007); 25 U.S.C. § 1952.) The department has an affirmative duty to inquire of relatives to gather the necessary information. (§ 224.3, subd. (c).) We find the department inquired of known relatives and included all known information in its notice; moreover, the information provided was sufficient to allow the tribes to determine whether the child was a member or was eligible for membership. None of the tribes stated it had insufficient information to make the necessary determination. The parents have not shown that any of the information in the notices was inaccurate.

IV. DISPOSITION

The parental rights termination order is affirmed.

We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., MOSK, J.


Summaries of

In re Trent V.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Mar 11, 2008
No. B201606 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2008)
Case details for

In re Trent V.

Case Details

Full title:LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Mar 11, 2008

Citations

No. B201606 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2008)