Opinion
2d Juv. No. B296999
02-18-2020
In re Q.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.C., Defendant and Appellant.
Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 19JV00056)
(Santa Barbara County)
T.C. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b).) She contends the order must be conditionally reversed due to noncompliance with the noticing requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). (§ 224 et seq.) We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that Mother and her son (Q.S.) tested positive for amphetamine and benzodiazepine at the time of Q.S.'s birth. The petition also alleged Mother had a criminal history, had untreated mental health issues, and provided an unsafe living environment that posed a risk of harm to Q.S. The petition alleged Mother's parental rights to her other child (N.C.) were previously terminated.
At the detention hearing, Mother said she was either Chiricahua or Apache. She said her previous dependency case involving N.C. contained more information regarding her Native American heritage. Mother also submitted a "parental notification of Indian status" form, in which she checked a box stating she "may have" paternal Mescalero Apache ancestry.
The jurisdiction report noted that CWS contacted Mother's father, who said he was adopted and his biological parents were from the Mescalero Apache tribe. However, he had no enrollment number or documentation to prove his relationship with the tribe.
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, CWS provided a copy of a status review report from Mother's prior dependency case, in which the juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply to N.C. That report stated the Mescalero/Apache tribe sent CWS a notification that N.C. was ineligible for enrollment in the tribe.
At the conclusion of the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and denied reunification services for Mother. (§ 361.5, subd. (b).) The court ordered that Q.S. remain in foster care. It made no final rulings on whether CWS completed ICWA notices or whether ICWA applied to the proceedings.
After Mother filed the notice of appeal, CWS served ICWA notices on eight tribes, including the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Mescalero Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona, and Yavapai-Apache Nation. After Mother filed her opening brief, CWS filed a document showing return receipts from all eight tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Secretary of the Interior, and Mother and Q.S.'s father. CWS submitted a six-month review report, which included an "ICWA matrix," showing the results of its investigation into whether ICWA applied to Q.S.'s case. CWS requested the juvenile court make a finding that ICWA did not apply.
Respondent's brief asserts that after submission of the six-month review report, the juvenile court found ICWA does not apply to Q.S.'s case. Mother did not file a reply brief. --------
DISCUSSION
Under ICWA, CWS has a "continuing duty to inquire whether a child [in a section 300 proceeding] is or may be an Indian child." (§ 224.2, subd. (a).) If CWS has "reason to know that the child [might be] an Indian child," it must "make further inquiry" into the child's status. (§ 224.2, subds. (c), (d) & (e).) CWS must send ICWA notices that include information listed in the statute to any tribe in which the child may be a member or eligible for membership, based on the parents' claims. (§ 224.3, subd. (a)(3) & (5).) The juvenile court must then "[t]reat the child as an Indian child" until it has determined that ICWA does not apply. (25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(2) (2016); see In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1157 [federal regulations implementing ICWA are binding on state courts].)
Mother argues the juvenile court erred because "despite mother's claim . . . that she possibly had Apache, Mescalero Apache, or Chiricahua Native American ancestry, no notices were ever sent . . . to any tribe or Indian entity." She seeks conditional reversal and remand for "compliance with the [ICWA], including notice to the Apache, Mescalero Apache, and Fort Sills Tribes."
However, after the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, CWS continued its investigation into Q.S.'s status by sending ICWA notices to eight tribes, including the ones Mother mentioned in her brief. Because the relief Mother seeks has now occurred, her challenge to the order is moot. (In re A.B. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1364 ["'When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed'"].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal from the order denying Mother's reunification services is dismissed as moot.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
TANGEMAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
Karen B. Stalter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.