Opinion
B324681
07-25-2023
In re J.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.B. et al., Defendants and Appellants LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.B. Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.A. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 20CCJP04062DE, Lisa Brackelmanns, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.B.
Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant J.A.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HEIDEL, J. [*]
J.A. (mother) and J.B. (father) appeal the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights over their two daughters-Jamie B. and Jazmin B. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in concluding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply. Both parents contend the court erred in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (§ 225 et seq.; 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA) did not apply. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the beneficial parent relationship exception to adoption did not apply, and that there was no ICWA-related error. We accordingly affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Facts
Mother and father have two daughters: Jamie (born April 2016) and Jazmin (born June 2020).
Mother has three other children with different fathers who are not the subject of this appeal.
Mother and father have a history of domestic violence that dates to July 2016, when father wrapped his arm around mother's neck and dragged her head down in Jamie's presence, bit mother's left eye, and struck her face with his fists. In August 2016, mother obtained a restraining order to protect herself and her children from father that expired in August 2019. Mother also has a Criminal Protective Order (CPO) that is valid until August 2029.
In September 2016 (in a prior proceeding), the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over Jamie and mother's three other children. In March 2017, after father expressed he was "not willing to have anything to do with the child," the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and granted sole legal and physical custody of Jamie to mother with no visitation to father. Father has "been in and out of jail" for crimes including assault with a deadly weapon, gang-related offenses, robbery, possession of controlled substances, and inflicting corporeal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.
In May 2020, while mother was eight months pregnant with Jazmin, mother took Jamie to visit paternal grandmother. Although father lived with paternal grandparents, mother did not think that father was home. While she and Jamie waited for the paternal grandmother in their car, father approached the driver side door, opened it, and laid across mother's stomach in a struggle to take her cell phone from her. Father took mother's cell phone, shattered it on the ground and then picked it up and threw it at mother inside the car. The incident left mother with bruises and scratches and only ended when a paternal aunt intervened.
Father has a history of abusing alcohol and methamphetamine, which began when he was 11 years old. Just after Jazmin was born, father introduced mother to methamphetamine, and she became addicted. Although mother has had periods of sobriety, she regularly suffers relapses-often triggered by father.
II. Procedural History
A. Jurisdictional and dispositional findings
In July 2020, one month after Jazmin was born, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), asking the juvenile court to assert dependency jurisdiction over Jamie and Jazmin (the children) due to mother and father's history of domestic violence, their history of violating the CPO prohibiting father from having contact with mother, father's history of substance abuse, and mother's failure to protect the children.
In August 2020, the children were detained from father and released to mother. Mother, who had been living with maternal grandmother, moved with the children to live in a garage and resume her relationship with father despite the CPO.
In September 2020, mother reported she was still in a relationship with father. She tested positive for methamphetamine and checked herself into rehab, leaving the children in maternal aunt's custody. Within one week of entering inpatient treatment, mother left and said she would do outpatient treatment.
On September 23, 2020, the Department filed an amended section 300 petition asserting mother's substance abuse as an additional ground for jurisdiction. Five days later, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from mother.
On November 12, 2020, the juvenile court sustained the counts in the first amended complaint under subdivision (b) of section 300, and removed the children from mother's custody.The court also ordered the Department to provide mother and father with reunification services, monitored visitation for both parents of at least six hours per week, and an additional 15 minutes of monitored telephone visitation for mother. For mother, the court ordered drug testing, domestic violence support group attendance, substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, individual counseling, and joint therapy with all her children. For father, the court ordered drug testing, substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and individual counseling.
The juvenile court struck one count related to domestic violence asserted under section 300, subdivision (a).
B. Reunification period
Mother received reunification services for 17 months-from September 2020 until the juvenile court terminated the services on February 22, 2022. Jamie and Jazmin were placed with maternal aunt.
On October 29, 2020, during mother's visit with the children at maternal aunt's house, Jamie "wanted to leave the visit and go upstairs." Jamie sometimes threw "tantrums" during visits, and frequently had violent "outbursts" following visits with mother. She also wanted "to be babied" after visits with mother. Jamie sometimes displayed "aggressive behavior towards Jazmin," which included "holding a pillow over her younger sister's face and choking her." On several occasions, Jamie called mother "fat" and "ugly," and told her "I don't want to talk to you," and "I don't love you." Other times, Jamie did not want to say goodbye to mother at the end of visits. Mother struggled to implement rules with Jamie, and would give "in to what Jamie wants so Jamie does not have a tantrum." Jamie was in therapy for her problematic behaviors. Mother did "not recognize the impact of her relationship" with father "on the children." Mother sometimes wanted to end her visits with the children early, and told maternal aunt not to inform the social workers. When Jazmin became "fussy" during visits, mother handed her to maternal aunt. Mother had "to be redirected in bonding and interacting with her children" by the social workers present at the visits.
By January 2021, mother had completed a 12-week program for domestic violence, and had enrolled in substance abuse treatment, individual counseling, and parenting classes. Mother completed the parenting classes in March 2021, but never completed individual counseling. Conjoint therapy sessions were postponed per the recommendation of therapists. During a visit with mother in February 2021, Jamie "wanted to play" with the social worker present and was "redirected . . . to play with mother."
Father failed to comply with any part of his case plan and was a "no show" to several scheduled visits with Jamie and Jazmin. Indeed, throughout the entire case, father "never had any visits with the children or . . . called the children." Father reported that he was "already in a new relationship" and was "not going to do any of the programs."
Father was arrested in February 2021. Mother remained in contact with father while he was in jail.
After testing positive for methamphetamine in September 2020, mother attended all but one drug tests between October 2020 and February 2021. Aside from the "no show," she tested negative each time. However, on April 29, 2021, mother again tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother resumed her relationship with father and used methamphetamine in May 2021.
In April 2021, maternal aunt expressed her willingness to adopt Jamie and Jazmin. Mother insisted that maternal aunt, and not mother, enroll the children in school because "they are hers right now."
When asked whether she wanted to live with mother, Jamie reported that "she can live with her auntie." Jamie also responded affirmatively when asked whether she enjoyed visiting her mother, explaining that "mother gets her a dress and shoes." Jamie reported that she remembered father "pull[ing] her shirt and her tummy," and expressed not wanting to see father "because he's not a nice person," "is in jail," "yells and hits mommy," and "chokes her." While Jamie discussed this domestic violence, she "became agitated and started walking around and jumping up and down aggressively."
In May 2021, Jamie still had issues with tantrums and also began "to have accidents as she is scared to use the bathroom by herself." These behaviors occurred more often after visits with mother. Jamie reported that "she does not like having dreams that involve her mom."
In June 2021, Jamie ran to hug mother, but referred to her as "auntie." In July 2021, Jamie referred to maternal aunt as "mom" and then corrected herself to say "auntie."
Mother was a "no show" for two drug tests in June and one in July 2021. She enrolled in substance abuse treatment classes, and then tested negative five times in July.
On August 17, 2021, the juvenile court found father's compliance with his case plan had "not been substantial" and terminated reunification services for him. The court found mother's compliance "has been substantial," and continued services for her.
Also in August 2021, mother moved into a motel room with father and began using methamphetamine again. Her substance abuse counselor advised her to check into an inpatient service, but she declined. Mother was a "no show" to two random drug tests in August, and one in September.
In September 2021, mother's therapist reported that she had provided mother with "tools and knowledge to stay away from DV relationships and prevent relapses," but that mother "has not implemented those techniques into her life" and "feels therapy is no longer needed."
In October 2021, mother missed her counseling sessions and was discharged from her mental health program due to "unsuccessful completion."
In November 2021, mother missed two random drug tests and two visits with the children. Mother explained these absences citing "car problems or stomach issues."
During the reunification period, Jamie and Jazmin thrived under the care of maternal aunt and her husband who "continually" met the children's needs and provided them with a "safe environment." Jamie and Jazmin were "happy, safe and comfortable" in their presence. Both children referred to maternal aunt and her husband as "mom" and "dad." Jamie indicated that she wanted to "stay with . . . my auntie mommy . . . and see my mom Mondays and Fridays." Both children are "happy when arriving back" to maternal aunt's home after visits with mother. And they regularly tell maternal aunt and her husband "I love you" and "I missed you" upon returning from visits.
Mother had another relapse in her methamphetamine use in early February 2022 after meeting with father. On February 18, 2022, the juvenile court found that mother's compliance with her case plan had "not been substantial," and found that mother had not "consistently and regularly visited the children." The court terminated reunification services for mother and scheduled a permanency planning hearing.
C. Permanency planning period
In early 2022, Jamie and Jazmin continued to thrive in the home of maternal aunt and her husband, who they perceived "as their parental figures." Both children had "developed a secure attachment" to maternal aunt and her husband, and both caretakers continued to express their desire to adopt the children. Jamie stated "that she loves living" with her aunt and the husband. Although Jazmin was too young to make a statement, she enjoyed "being in the arms of her caregivers."
Mother continued to visit the children, and when mother was in rehab, the visits occurred over Zoom. The virtual visits were short because Jamie did not like Zoom visits. During one March 2022 visit, Jamie pretended not to hear mother and walked away from the camera. In another March visit, Jamie stated she did not want to speak with mother because she had homework to do. Jamie sometimes displayed aggressive behavior towards Jazmin during visits, which mother would "excuse."
Jamie no longer had difficulty saying goodbye to her mother at the end of visits. Jamie and Jazmin were "happy upon returning to caregiver's home from supervised visits with mother." Jamie was sometimes "anxious to return to" maternal aunt's home. Although when mother canceled visits, Jamie had "a tantrum," Jamie sometimes "wanted to cancel the visit or finish the visit . . . early."
During an April 2022 visit, Jamie and Jazmin ignored mother while mother tried to interact with them. When mother told Jamie she loved her, Jamie responded "I love you and I love my mom," pointing to maternal aunt. Jamie was happy to say goodbye. In another April visit, Jamie was eager to leave to complete her homework.
In May 2022, mother had a visit with the children at a park. She stated she was not feeling well, "was observed to be sweating, and ended the visit early."
In June 2022, Jamie was observed to be upset, and when asked what happened, she responded "her daddy hit her mommy with the cellphone and now her head was mad." Jamie explained that these events occurred in "a nightmare and she felt bad and scared."
Jamie's behavioral problems had "improved" due to her consistent therapy and maternal aunt and her husband's consistency in "following therapist suggestions in response to Jamie's aggressive behavior." Jamie was also being tutored at the public library to practice reading and math.
On June 27, 2022, Jamie did not want to attend the visit with mother because she wanted to be with her "auntie mommy" who was going to the store. However, when she realized the visit was to occur at Chuck E. Cheese, she changed her mind. That night, Jamie "had a nightmare about her dad hitting her mom with the cellphone and she was scared." When asked whether Jamie was "ok" to visit her mother, Jamie asked where the visit would be and stated it was "ok" upon learning the visit would occur at a museum.
In July 2022, mother's visits with the children were "going well." But Jamie reported the same month having "a nightmare about dad choking mom."
In August 2022, Jamie was asking mother during the visits "why she left them with auntie mommy," and mother did not know how to respond. Mother helped Jamie with her homework during one visit.
On September 12, 2022, mother filed a request under section 388 that the court permit unmonitored visitation, assess her home for weekend overnight visitation, and reinstate reunification services. The juvenile court scheduled the hearing for that petition on the same date as the permanency planning hearing.
Also in September 2022, Jamie "had been having nightmares and waking up crying and scared." These nightmares involved being taken from maternal aunt's home and returned to her mother's care.
In October 2022, mother reported not being in a relationship with father who was then incarcerated, but maternal aunt found a recent letter from father. Jamie continued to have nightmares about being taken away from her maternal aunt's home. She reported that she liked "visiting her mother . . . but wanted to stay living with her" aunt.
D. Termination of parental rights
The juvenile court conducted the permanency planning hearing and the section 388 petition hearing on October 25, 2022. At the Department's request, the court admitted into evidence the October 25, 2022 388 Response, the September 14, 2022 interim review report, June 17, 2022 section 366.26 report, and October 25, 2022 last minute information, and took notice of all sustained petitions, court-ordered case plans, court orders and findings and contents of the judicial file.
Mother testified in support of her section 388 petition. She described the rehab programs she had participated in and the programs she was currently enrolled in. She testified she had not been in contact with father since August of 2021. She also testified that her visits with her children were "good" and that they are "always happy" to see her. The Department and counsel for the children both opposed granting mother's section 388 petition. The children's counsel argued that even though circumstances may have been changing, there was no change in circumstances as required under section 388. The Department added that all siblings had experienced trauma, and that Jamie has made significant improvements in her problematic behaviors since being placed with aunt, which could "revert" through more exposure to mother. The juvenile court denied mother's section 388 petition, adopting the arguments of the Department and the children's counsel.
With respect to terminating parental rights, no party asked to present further evidence. Counsel for mother argued without elaboration that "the children have a significant relationship with [mother], and it would not be in their best interest to terminate parental rights at this time." The children's counsel argued that although there were periods of time "where mother does have regular, consistent visitation, those have really been in the period of time where father is incarcerated and not accessible." Children's counsel also argued there was no evidence of the children's "substantial positive emotional attachment" to mother. Rather, the evidence showed that "Jamie continues to struggle with mom." Jamie continued to ignore her mother during visits, misbehave during and after visits, and have nightmares after the visits about being taken away from maternal aunt. Jamie expressed wanting to stay with her aunt.
The juvenile court found the children adoptable and further found that mother has "not maintained regular visitation with the children and [has not] established a bond with the children such that it would outweigh the benefits of adoption." It further found that any benefit to the children from their relationship with mother "is outweighed by the physical and emotional benefit the children will receive through [the] permanency and stability of adoption."
Mother and father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception
Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply, and on that basis, in terminating her parental rights. We disagree.
After a juvenile court terminates reunification services, it "shall terminate parental rights" if it finds by "clear and convincing" evidence "that it is likely the child will be adopted" within a reasonable time. (§ 366.26, subds. (a) &(c)(1); In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 406.) The juvenile court must terminate parental rights and order adoption unless the parent opposing termination proves that one of six statutory exceptions applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1) &(c)(1)(B); In re B.D. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1224-1225 (B.D.).)
One exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) This exception "applies in situations where a child cannot be in a parent's custody but where severing the child's relationship with the parent, even when balanced against the benefits of a new adoptive home, would be harmful for the child." (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630 (Caden C.).) A court may only apply the exception if the parent shows: "(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child." (Id. at p. 631.) In assessing whether a child would benefit from a continued relationship with the parent, the parent must show that the child has a "substantial, positive, emotional attachment" with the parent in light of several factors, such as" '[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the "positive" or "negative" effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs.'" (Id. at pp. 632-633.) Whether the parent would be able to care for the child on her own is not relevant because the parent-child benefit relationship exception does not place the child back into the parent's custody; it merely precludes the termination of parental rights. (In re D.M. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 261, 269-270 (D.M.); In re J.D. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 833, 864-865; B.D., supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1229-1230.) We review a juvenile court's findings regarding the first two elements (visitation and relationship) for substantial evidence, and its ruling regarding the third element (balancing of detriment versus benefit) for an abuse of discretion. (Caden C., at pp. 639-640.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that mother's visitation with the children was inconsistent. At the hearing, mother testified that she maintained regular visits with the children "when the social workers have assigned me someone to supervise" but suggested that there had been times when "they're short on staff and they don't have [anyone] to do it for [her]." She stated that she "would see [her] children twice a week, if possible. But if not, I will only sometimes get one day a week or a Zoom visit, here and then." But despite evidence that mother had some periods of consistent visitation, the record demonstrates that that there were also periods of time when mother did not visit consistently. On December 14, 2020, maternal aunt reported that mother had asked that the children not visit, and maternal aunt believed that mother was acting suspiciously and likely seeing father again. In both the January 12, 2022 Child Welfare Services Case Plan Update and the February 9, 2022 Status Review Report prepared for the 12 month permanency hearing, the Department noted that "Mother is not consistent with her supervised visitation." At the February 18, 2022 review hearing the court found that neither parent had "consistently and regularly visited the children." Indeed, it was only on May 10, 2022, that the case worker reported that "recently mother has been visiting the children twice a week." Even then, there were still some missed visits. On June 17, 2022, the caseworker observed that Jamie had tantrums "where mother cancels the visit." And on July 27, 2022, the case worker "stated that mother is doing better in following through and following the visitation rules." This evidence was sufficient for the juvenile court to find that mother's visitation had not been "consistent[ ] and to the extent permitted by court orders." (In re I.R. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 201, 212.) The fact that there was some evidence that mother sometimes visited the children consistently does not require a different conclusion. (See In re M.G. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 836, 848 [appellate court's role in reviewing for substantial evidence is to determine whether" 'any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports'" the juvenile court's findings]; Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640 ["reviewing court should 'not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts' "].)
Moreover, even if mother could establish regular visitation under step one of Caden C., ample evidence in the record supported the finding that neither Jamie nor Jazmin had a "substantial, positive, emotional attachment" with mother, let alone one that outweighed the benefits of adoption. Mother cared for Jamie until she was four years old and cared for Jazmin only for the first three months of her life. Jamie is now seven, and Jazmin three. Although initially Jamie had difficulty saying goodbye to mother, this resolved over time, and ultimately Jamie became "happy" to say goodbye and even eager to end the visits. Although at times she reported enjoying her visits with mother, she sometimes only agreed to see mother upon learning the visits would be somewhere exciting, such as Chuck E. Cheese or a museum. When asked whether she enjoyed visiting mother, she responded affirmatively, stating that "mother gets her a dress and shoes." These facts support the conclusion that the bond Jamie had with mother did not qualify as a "substantial, positive, emotional attachment." That Jamie sometimes wanted to cancel visits, end them early, ignored mother during the visits, and said mean things to her further bolsters the conclusion that there was no strong attachment. When Jazmin, who was just a baby, became "fussy" during her visits with mother, mother would pass her to maternal aunt. Although Jazmin had positive interactions with mother, she was happy to return to maternal aunt's home.
On the other hand, Jamie and Jazmine thrived under the care of maternal aunt and her husband, who consistently provided a "safe environment" and met the children's needs, including Jamie's needs to see a therapist. Both children called them "mom" and "dad" and told them "I love you" and "I missed you" upon returning from visits. Jamie was sometimes anxious to return to maternal aunt's home after visiting her mother. She repeatedly reported that she wanted to live with her aunt. Jamie had behavioral issues that were triggered by her visits with mother, such as throwing tantrums, having violent outbursts, and having accidents due to being scared to use the bathroom. After visits with mother, Jamie experienced nightmares about being taken from maternal aunt's home and placed with mother, and about father abusing mother. We cannot say that the juvenile court here abused its discretion in finding that the benefits to Jamie and Jazmin of being adopted outweighed the loss of their relationship with their mother.
Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in (1) failing to consider a bonding study or expert testimony; (2) improperly considering the probability of future contact between mother and children; (3) improperly focusing on mother's drug relapses, failure to comply with her reunification plan, and difficulty in remaining separate from father; and (4) failing to consider how Jamie's and Jazmin's relationships with their other siblings would be impacted by the termination of mother's parental rights. We address each argument in turn.
Mother cites no authority to support her contention that "[t]here is simply no other recourse than to reverse the trial court's finding" and to use "the full panoply of experts" before deciding whether to terminate parental rights. Indeed, mother concedes that there is no "hard-and-fast rule that such studies and reports always be used and trial courts retain discretion in not using them." Mother also cites Caden C., which stated that trial courts "should seriously consider, where requested and appropriate, allowing for a bonding study or other relevant expert testimony." (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633, fn. 4.) Mother cannot show the trial court erred in failing to consider a study or report because she never requested any. Nor did she seek to introduce any expert testimony.
Nor does the record support mother's argument that the juvenile court improperly considered the probability of future contact between mother and the children. In making this argument, mother points to a statement by the trial court that: "[I]t won't be the last time that the children see [mother]." In fact, the court stated, "since [it has] already terminated the parental rights, it's up to the caregivers....I don't see why they wouldn't do that if the children want to see their mother . . . they certainly don't have to but they are living with the maternal relatives. So, hopefully, it won't be the last time that the children see [mother], but that is up to them. So I'm not going to order that . . . mother is to see the children...." Considered in context, the court's comment shows that the court did not base its ruling on its understanding that the children would see their mother. Rather, the court acknowledged that in terminating parental rights, there was no guarantee the children would see mother again, although it was possible and "hopeful[ ]" that they would. (See In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1527 [we must presume the court is able to recognize those facts which properly may be considered in making a decision].)
Mother argues that the juvenile court "was far too concerned with [mother's] failure" to comply with her reunification plan, abstain from drug use, and remain separated from father. Although a parent's "continued struggles" with the issues that led to dependency cannot on their own be a bar to the parent-child relationship benefit exception, mother ignores that "a parent's struggles with the issues that led to the dependency are [nonetheless] 'relevant to the application'" of the exception "because it may be probative of whether interaction between parent and child has a negative effect on the child." (D.M., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 270, citing Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 637.) Here, mother's inability to end her relationship with father was closely tied to the negative impact mother had on Jamie. Father's violence against mother was a recurring theme in Jamie's nightmares, and her memories of witnessing the violence caused her to become both fearful and aggressive. We disagree with mother that the juvenile court improperly considered her continued relationship with father and the negative impact that relationship had on Jamie. Nothing in the record suggests that the juvenile court relied on mother's failure in a vacuum, without considering the relevant factors set forth in Caden C. Indeed, the court specifically framed its findings in terms of the relevant factors. (See In re Marriage of Davenport, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1527 [we must presume that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law].)
Mother also cites no authority to support her argument that the juvenile court erred in failing to consider the impact that adoption would have on Jamie's and Jazmin's relationships with their siblings. Nor does she point to evidence suggesting adoption would negatively impact the siblings' relationships with one another. Indeed, two of mothers' older children wrote letters to the court stating their beliefs that mother should not "get the right to see her daughters or even be called a mother" and their fears that if Jamie "goes back" to mother, all her improvement "is going to go away and she will be held back and go back to the angry viol[e]nt little girl who had to witness traumatic events." We therefore reject mother's unsupported contention that the trial court erred in not expressly considering Jamie and Jazmin's relationships with their siblings.
We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that the parent-child benefit exception did not apply.
II. ICWA
Mother and father argue the order terminating their parental rights must be reversed because the juvenile court erred in finding the Department conducted an adequate inquiry to determine whether Jamie or Jazmin are or may be Indian children within the meaning of ICWA.
A. Pertinent facts and procedural background
1. Mother's ancestry
In June 2020, mother denied having any Indian ancestry. She filed an ICWA-020 form stating the same in August 2020. In August 2022, maternal aunt denied having Indian ancestry. In September 2022, maternal grandmother denied that there was any Indian ancestry in her family.
2. Father's ancestry
In November 2020, father filed an ICWA-020 form denying any Indian ancestry. In September 2022, paternal grandmother was asked whether she had Indian ancestry in her family, and she responded: "[Father] was born in the United States and me and my husband were born in Mexico. No, there is no Native American ancestry in the family."
Based on these inquiries, the juvenile court expressly found that it had no reason to believe the children were "Indian children." No party objected to this finding.
3. Pertinent law
ICWA was enacted to address "the separation of large numbers of Indian children from their families and tribes through adoption or foster care placement." (Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989) 490 U.S. 30, 32.) To this end, ICWA and California's statutes implementing it impose several duties upon dependency courts. (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.; § 224 et seq.) California law imposes on the court and county welfare department an "affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child" who is the subject of a juvenile dependency petition "is or may be an Indian child." (§ 224.2, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481.) An "Indian child" is a child who (1) is "a member of an Indian tribe," or (2) "is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe." (25 U.S.C. § 1903(4); § 224.1, subd. (a) [adopting federal law definition].)
Section 224.2 imposes three distinct duties regarding ICWA: first, an initial inquiry must be made to the child and family members as to whether the child may be an Indian child (§ 224.2, subds. (a) &(b)); second, if that inquiry creates a "reason to believe" the child is an Indian child, then the Department "shall make further inquiry regarding the possible Indian status of the child" (id. subd. (e)); third, if that inquiry results in "reason to know" that the child is an Indian child, then it must provide formal notice pursuant to section 224.3 (§ 224.3, subd. (a)).
Only the first duty is at issue here: the initial "duty" of the Department and the juvenile court "to inquire whether [a] child is an Indian child." (§ 224.2, subds. (a) &(b).) To discharge this duty, the Department must ask family members-including "extended family members"-"whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child." (Id. subd. (b).)
"[W]e review the juvenile court's ICWA findings under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to determine if reasonable, credible evidence of solid value supports the court's order." (In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303, 314; accord, In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1051.)
4. Analysis
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's ICWA finding. Father insists that the Department's ICWA inquiry was inadequate because although it had contact with paternal grandfather and a paternal uncle and was aware of other paternal siblings, it made no inquiry of those family members regarding Indian ancestry. The focus of our analysis, however, is "not . . . on the number of individuals interviewed, but on whether the agency's ICWA inquiry has yielded reliable information" about a child's possible Indian ancestry. (In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 984, 1009 (Ezequiel G.).) Mother, father, maternal aunt, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandmother all unequivocally denied having Indian ancestry. Nothing in the record suggests that these individuals' self-reports were not reliable or fully informed. We therefore conclude that the Department's inquiry was adequate.
Father argues that paternal grandmother's response that she and her husband "were born in Mexico" does not preclude them having Indian ancestry. This may be, but paternal grandmother not only stated that she was born in Mexico-she expressly denied having Indian ancestry. Father's reliance on In re Oscar H. (2002) 84 Cal.App.5th 933, is unavailing, as the Department in that case failed to ask father or any of his relatives about their Indian ancestry, which explains why the court questioned the relevance of the Department's belief that father was Mexican. (Id. at p. 937.) Unlike in Oscar H., father and paternal grandmother were both questioned, and both plainly denied Indian ancestry.
Finally, even if the juvenile court erred in finding the Department complied with its duty of inquiry, the error would be harmless. The record contains no information suggesting that an inquiry of other paternal relatives would have yielded different information, or suggesting any other reason to believe Jamie and Jazmin were Indian children within the meaning of ICWA. (See Ezequiel G., supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 1014; In re Dezi C. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769, 779, review granted Sept. 21, 2022, S275578.)
DISPOSITION
The orders terminating parents' parental rights are affirmed.
We concur: EDMON, P. J., EGERTON, J.
[*]Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.