Opinion
B303988
07-08-2020
In re H.A., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. P.M., Defendant and Appellant.
Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK15904B) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kim L. Nguyen, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *
Father P.M. appeals the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights to daughter, H.A. Father contends the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) and the juvenile court failed to make an inquiry into his Indian ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.).
This family came to the attention of the Department in February 2016, following a referral that H.A. and her sister (who is not at issue in this appeal) were being neglected and abused by mother, J.A. Father did not participate in the dependency proceedings, or communicate with the Department. In fact, he did not make his first appearance in court until after his reunification services were terminated, two and a half years after the court took jurisdiction over H.A. Father's parental rights were terminated on January 6, 2020, and he timely appealed.
At the time father filed his opening brief in this appeal, the record did not reflect that the juvenile court or the Department ever asked father about his Indian ancestry. (See In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115, 120-121 [discussing ICWA inquiry requirements].)
However, after the filing of father's opening brief, the Department filed a record omission letter pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.410, requesting that the juvenile court prepare and certify transcripts for two hearings where father or his counsel appeared. We ordered that the juvenile court transmit the transcripts to this court.
After reviewing these transcripts, and the Department's brief, father now concedes the juvenile court asked him about his Indian ancestry at his first appearance, and that he responded that he was not aware of any Indian ancestry. Because the juvenile court inquired about father's Indian ancestry, and father does not raise any other claims of error on appeal, we must affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating father's parental rights is affirmed.
GRIMES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
WILEY, J.