In re E.U. CA2/1

Filed 9/23/25 In re E.U. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re E.U., a Person Coming B345763 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

(Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP00632) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

C.U. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and terminating parental rights to her son E.U. (born in 2017). E.U.’s father, S.P. (Father), is not a party to this appeal. Mother does not challenge the merits of the court’s rulings but solely contends we must conditionally reverse the order terminating her parental rights because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services’ (DCFS) inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA), and the California statutes implementing ICWA (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.) (Cal-ICWA), was deficient.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND We summarize only those facts relevant to this appeal. In December 2022, the family came to the attention of DCFS following an investigation alleging Mother neglected E.U. DCFS interviewed Mother at her in-patient rehabilitation program. She identified S.P. as E.U.’s biological father but stated he had no contact with the child, who lived with her, her parents (the maternal grandparents), and her sister (the maternal aunt). The court found S.P. was the alleged father. Both Mother and the maternal grandparents denied several times that they had Native American ancestry. DCFS interviewed the maternal aunt twice but did not ask her about E.U.’s possible Indian status. The maternal grandmother reported she had a third child, M.U. (a maternal uncle), who lived in Mexico. DCFS did not interview the maternal uncle.