Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. S.S.

Filed 6/26/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re S.E., a Person Coming Under the B244326 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK75981)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Marpet, Commissioner. Reversed and remanded. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.S. Andre F. F. Toscano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.A.-E. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

A.A.-E. (Father) and S.S. (Mother) appeal from an order of the juvenile court establishing guardianship of their son, S.E. Both parents contend that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) and the analogous California statutes governing custody proceedings involving Indian children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.)1 We conclude that the inquiry and notice conducted was not in full compliance with the requisites of the statute. We reverse for the limited purpose of full compliance with ICWA, as explained below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Dependency Proceedings Culminating in Legal Guardianship Order On April 16, 2008, DCFS received a referral alleging neglect of S.E. (born Oct. 2005) by Mother. The list of medical concerns for the boy included: failure to thrive/oral aversion, delayed speech, anemia, eczema, undescended testes, severe tooth decay, and asthma. Mother signed a voluntary family maintenance contract but, over the ensuing months, she repeatedly failed to adequately care for him and told social workers that her religious beliefs were not compatible with conventional medicine. In January 2009, DCFS determined that S.E. was not getting adequate care for his problems and detained S.E. from Mother, placing him with the maternal grandparents. On January 21, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that Mother had failed to protect S.E. Father filed a statement with the court declaring that he was S.E.‟s parent. On April 25, 2009, the parents abducted S.E. from the site of a monitored visit. The court issued a protective custody warrant for S.E. and arrest warrants for the parents.