Opinion
B324851
11-29-2023
In re M.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. K.H., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK38756E-F Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Conditionally affirmed and remanded.
Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KIM, J.
K.H. (mother) appeals from orders placing her children, M.W. and K.G. (the children), in legal guardianships pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3. We conditionally affirm and remand.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 ["Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated"]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because "an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel's arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties' positions"].)
Mother contends that the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not comply with their obligations under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and related California statutes (§ 224 et seq.). According to mother, the Department failed to comply with its continuing duty to interview extended family members regarding ICWA even after mother advised the Department that she had Cherokee heritage through her maternal grandfather.
The Department concedes error and requests that we conditionally affirm the orders for legal guardianship over the children and remand the matter with directions to the juvenile court to reinstate jurisdiction for the limited purpose of additional ICWA inquiry.
We agree with the parties that this case involves reversible error because there was noncompliance with the requirements of ICWA and related California law. (See In re H.V. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 433, 438; In re Charles W. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 483, 489.) Specifically, the Department did not interview M.W.'s paternal grandmother, the children's adult siblings, or their maternal cousins about Indian ancestry despite prior contacts with these relatives. We will therefore conditionally affirm and remand for further proceedings. Because we have concluded that remand is appropriate, we deny mother's request to take additional evidence on appeal as moot. Mother may present her evidence, in the first instance, to the juvenile court on remand.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order placing the children in a legal guardianship under section 366.3 is conditionally affirmed and remanded for further proceedings required by this opinion. The court shall order the Department to make reasonable efforts to interview available extended family members, including, paternal grandmother Betty H., adult siblings Ebony C. and Kevin G., and maternal cousins Cynthia M. and Lisa G. about the possibility of the children's Indian ancestry and to report on the results of those efforts. Nothing in this disposition precludes the court from ordering additional inquiry of others having an interest in the child. Based on the information reported, if the court determines that no additional inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the order placing the children in legal guardianships is to be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice is warranted, the court shall make all necessary orders to ensure compliance with ICWA and related California law.
I concur: RUBIN, P. J.
BAKER, J., Concurring
I agree we must remand the matter to the juvenile court because there was insufficient Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry into possible Indian heritage on the maternal side of the minors' family. I disagree with the breadth of the majority's remand instructions, however. We should remand only with directions to the juvenile court to supervise an adequate inquiry into the mother's claim of Cherokee heritage. (See, e.g., In re A.C. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 130, 145 (dis. opn. of Baker, J.) ["the juvenile courts must manage [the ICWA] process in the first instance"].)