From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.N. (In re L.G.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Aug 30, 2023
No. B326346 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)

Opinion

B326346

08-30-2023

In re L.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.N., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. 17LJJP00063A, CK51700C, Jennifer W. Barnoff, Juvenile Court Referee. Conditionally affirmed and remanded.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Avedis Koutoujian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

RUBIN, P. J.

Father appeals from termination of parental rights to his two children (born in 2015 and 2017). His sole argument on appeal is that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with its inquiry duties under Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2, subdivision (b)-the California statute implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).Father asserts that although DCFS inquired of the maternal grandmother regarding the children's Native American ancestry, it nonetheless failed to inquire of the paternal grandfather, paternal aunt, and an adult maternal half-sibling whether the children had any Native American ancestry.

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

DCFS submitted a concession letter in lieu of a respondent's brief, agreeing father's contention has merit. DCFS states: "The record indicates the paternal grandfather and paternal aunt were known and accessible, yet were not interviewed regarding the issue of any Indian ancestry."

We, too, agree there was noncompliance with the inquiry requirements of ICWA and related California provisions. (In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735, 744.) Here, DCFS only inquired with the parents and the maternal grandmother regarding Native American ancestry. DCFS did not ask the available extended family members about heritage, i.e. the paternal grandfather and paternal aunt. We conditionally affirm the termination of parental rights and remand to allow DCFS to remedy the ICWA inquiry error, and the juvenile court to determine anew whether ICWA applies.

To the extent father asserts DCFS should have contacted the adult half-sibling, the record fails to show that DCFS had any contact information for her. The sole reference to the half-sibling is when DCFS described sustained jurisdictional findings in the half-sibling's 2003 dependency proceedings. (See In re Q.M. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1083 ["Without reliable contact information, DCFS could not reasonably have been expected to interview extended family members"]; In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 323 ["ICWA does not obligate the court or [DCFS] 'to cast about' for investigative leads"].)

DISPOSITION

The December 16, 2022 termination of parental rights order is conditionally affirmed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring compliance with the inquiry provisions of section 224.2. The court shall order DCFS to complete an inquiry into the children's Indian ancestry by making reasonable efforts to interview available extended family members, specifically the paternal grandfather and paternal aunt. If, after ICWA compliance, the juvenile court issues an order determining that ICWA does not apply, the order terminating parental rights shall remain in effect. If the court determines ICWA applies, it shall vacate the order and proceed in accordance with ICWA and related state law.

I CONCUR: MOOR, J.

BAKER, J., Dissenting

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services undertook an adequate inquiry and determined there is no basis to conclude the minors in question are, or may be, Indian children. (In re A.C. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 130, 132 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.); In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984; In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 439 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.).) I would therefore affirm the parental rights termination order unconditionally.


Summaries of

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.N. (In re L.G.)

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Aug 30, 2023
No. B326346 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)
Case details for

L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. J.N. (In re L.G.)

Case Details

Full title:In re L.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.N.…

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

Date published: Aug 30, 2023

Citations

No. B326346 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2023)